Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 June	14 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 keep. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Larson (political candidate)[edit]

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

A gadfly political candidate and provocateur. No SNG is met. The coverage of him is largely "look at this terrible person running for political office", I feel it is "mere short-term interest" or "a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". I also don't believe an article can be written that isn't either promotional, an attack page, or both. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites multiple reliable sources about the candidate. [1][2][3] etc. I know that such a concept is almost inconceivably archaic to most, but I don't think you should delete the encyclopedia information about a candidate simply because you don't like the candidate. Wnt (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he does not meet wp:NPOL he passes the wp:gng as he has garnered quite a bit of coverage in independent reliable sources. Zingarese (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote the article after observing that he had not only huge amounts of coverage arising from his current candidacy (extending to The Independent in the UK, and among articles I did not use are Metro UK and Newsweek, plus numerous TV stations, one of which interviewed him) but also two Washington Post articles from his state candidacy last year. Enduring coverage. (He was also discussed by the candidates in last year's gubernatorial campaign in Virginia. That merits only a mention in an article about him but also contributes to his notability.) Yes, it was a challenge to write it fairly; I had initially posted a heads-up at the BLP noticeboard, and subsequently at User talk:Drmies, where I expected both the page owner and the many experienced talk-page watchers would both keep an eye on the article once I wrote it and tell me straight if I'd been non-neutral, and the article has attracted some of the WP:UNDUE that I had feared, but I hope I did a fair job. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article, as it currently stands, is neither promotional nor an attack page; indeed, Yngvadottir did a fine job of writing a neutral article, and should be commended. Likewise, the sources for the article are, more or less, unimpeachable; why, just the other day, I read the Eli Rosenberg article about him in The Washington Post.
Anyway, regardless of my personal disdain for the candidate, he undoubtedly passes WP:GNG: he has received significant coverage (generally an article or so, each time) in reliable sources (I will grant that The Tab isn't all that reliable, in my opinion, but the Post, USA Today, and The Independent clearly are) that are independent of the subject (which is a given, given his views). Sure, he may be a fringe candidate that is doing this as a stunt, or whatever, but the subject is indubitably notable, and the article is perfectly fine as it is. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 04:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awful human being that he is he has certainly garnered a lot of attention, that means he is notable (for all the wrong reasons, but still notable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Unfortunately. Then again, it takes all sorts. God in his wisdom made the fly, and then forgot to tell us why. [4] Andrewa (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote delete on a lot of politicians for failing WP:GNG. Having read his article and having checked the sources, I wish he did. SportingFlyer talk 05:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASIC. A nice job writing an article about a distasteful subject. I hope to never have to read it again. Meters (talk) 06:56, 15 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! 23:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FirstCity Financial[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. This company apparently shut its doors in 2015, and generated precious little significant coverage prior to that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, and research provides no significant coverage in third-party sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just mentions or non RS, runofthemill journals which cover anything and everything. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:21, 16 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! 23:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Ponasenkov[edit]

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

Looks self-promoting: most links point to the person’s own websites. No reasonable content. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of meeting the notability guidelines for academics. Also way too much mention of the article itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a combinaion of promotion for his academic articles and complaints about his treatment in Russia WP. WP:NACADEMIC is actually the way to go here because he apparently only sings as a side gig. He does not rise enough above his peers to meet academic notability, with only some basic run-of-the--mill notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion so far seems to have been based on a far too narrow consideration of what might be relevant evidence in this case. The existing article is promotional (perhaps not in the colloquial sense of term, but fairly certainly in the rather wider sense standardly used in AFD discussions), but promotional language can be removed or appropriately revised. It depends too much on sources written by or closely connected with the subject but, provided reliable sources can be found, this is also likely to be correctable. The subject does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC but, while at first sight this is the most obvious WP:SNG, the subject would still be notable if they meet WP:GNG or any other WP:SNG. Also, the previous contributors to this discussion, while they may well have used the standard searches on the article title, show no sign of having taken into account that the subject is a Russian whose life so far seems to have been largely or entirely within Russia and is therefore most likely to appear in Russian-language sources using the Cyrillic alphabet - and searches seem to be far more productive if they use (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). I would add that, while the section in the article on the subject's Russian Wikipedia entry has no secondary sourcing and should not be there, this is certainly something that could have been mentioned on the article's Talk page - a Google translation of the Russian article certainly shows signs of bias against the subject. But the very fact that Russian Wikipedia contains a long attack article on the subject, rather than no article at all, is certainly suggestive of some kind of notability. In fact, the GScholar results, even in Russian, are poor enough to give no indication that the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC (though I would not regard this as completely conclusive, as GScholar results tend to under-report even historians writing in English, and all the major citation indexes seem to work better on work written in English tnan in almost any other language). However, GNews results, so far as I can judge them on almost zero knowledge of Russian, suggest that the subject might well meet WP:GNG - but this would need someone literate in Russian to confirm (or not). PWilkinson (talk) 20:52, 20 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! 23:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NB&T Financial Group[edit]

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

Previously nominated per WP:ORG but closed as no consensus. No improvement since prior nomination. Nothing but routine coverage of this local bank company: Reuters, Bloomberg, Yahoo, etc. The standard business directory hits to be found for any NASDAQ stock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just routine coverage in reliable sources, not sufficient to show notability. Doesn't look like it passes corporate notability requirements. PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable- The current refs are not ideal; they are mostly from the company website (dead), or generic "search" type results. I tried looking for better refs, and found a couple of press releases saying it had been bought out and absorbed in 2015.[5][6] Which would explain the dead refs, but it does mean that the company isn't likely to get any more notable any time soon. Curdle (talk) 16:28, 20 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! 23:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BHS-Sonthofen[edit]

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

Just a run of the mill company that does not meet WP:NCORP SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice :-). Does not meet WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. Wikipedia is not an extension of a corporate website. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, fails WP:GNG & WP:NCORP. The editor whose username is Z0 11:59, 20 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! 23:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Setschedule[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Almost certainly native advertising. MER-C 20:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete press release, forbes contributor, interview, press release, minor award and so on. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Galobtter. No notability, fails WP:GNG & WP:NCORP. The editor whose username is Z0 12:01, 20 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! 23:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples Financial Corporation[edit]

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

Small regional bank of no particular notability. Confusion has abounded in this article, as sources regarding other companies also named "Peoples Financial" have been conflated with this company. When searching for references, be sure to look for this company's NASDAQ symbol: PFBX. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability guidelines, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. The editor whose username is Z0 12:12, 20 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:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) NZFC^(talk) 21:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhithe Catimba Football Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and doesn't have enough for WP:GNG. I proposed deletion but tag was removed without reason. User who created page only contacted me about name of club not why notable. Page is basically a blurb and unsourced Team list. NZFC^(talk) 05:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does Chatham Cup participation not count wrt WP:FOOTYN? Nzd (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have this discussion with someone before about clubs meeting notability requirements because they play in a National Cup and was told they are guidelines only, they still need to meet WP:ORG. So appears to be conflicting requirements for sports clubs. One thing I will say is any team that is associated with NZ football can enter the cup as long as they pay the fee. So do feel it would be very broad to allow it in this case even though I wouldn't mind seeing another Nz clubs page on Wikipedia (though this page would still need a clean up). NZFC^(talk) 07:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say playing in the Chatham Cup is notable - but where is the evidence? Giant Snowman 12:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Nzd (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has participated in the Chatham cup, meets FOOTYN. Smartyllama (talk) 13:59, 6 June 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)} 18:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets FOOTYN by virtue of Chatham Cup participation. Nzd (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm withdrawing my nomination as it appears that you can use Chatham Cup to meet WP:NFOOTYN clubs meet notability requirements because they play in a National Cup. NZFC^(talk) 21:02, 13 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) » Shadowowl | talk 18:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Damousi[edit]

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

Article with 2 sources and a lot of WP:FLOWERY language like outstanding research leadership, scholary excellence, one of the leading women academics and champion of research excellence. In my opinion it almost meets G11. » Shadowowl | talk 17:58, 13 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! 23:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Dolls Motorcycle Club[edit]

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

Non-notable motorcycle club. This article was created to support the Karen Jessica Evans article, since deleted as non-notable. Natg 19 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, SportingFlyer, Evans1982, and Weathervane13:, who also participated in the AfD for Karen Jessica Evans

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability guidelines, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. The editor whose username is Z0 12:13, 20 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 Nomination withdrawn Xevus11, You can see WP:CLOSEAFD, thanks! (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jhonny Lucas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played in a fully-professional league. Xevus11 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tag mistake, does not fail notable.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 14 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! 23:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Run in Red (band)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article fails WP:NBAND and I have been unable to find any additional coverage than the press-release-based announcement I added in this edit (uses same wording as appears on the band's website) to shore up a WP:GNG argument. The article was moved to mainspace from draft space in this state after having been rejected once. "Relevant to the Irish music industry at large" (edit summary for move) is not a criterion for having an article, and the sourcing is very poor. I've cleaned up the article as best I can, including fully identifying the sources, and they are mostly announcements of appearances. On the talk page, an editor adduced three as being good: Into the Echo (a podcast on iTunes), Joe.ie (a men's news site), and The Sharpe (a style magazine); the last is a brief summary, one of 8 in the article, and the genre and line-up are unsourced, so I do not believe this sourcing rises to the level we require to demonstrate notability. A point has now been made on the talk page about Pandora: I do not believe this is any more indicative of notability than is having got gigs. I would expect more in the way of extended reviews. I tagged the article for notability pending appearance of the band's second EP, expected later this month, and in case editors monitoring articles so tagged could find earlier reviews that I have not, but the tag has now been twice removed and the arguments have become accusations of bias, so I conclude there are no more sources and since the article was moved out of AfC without being passed by a reviewer, I believe we need to evaluate the notability issue now rather than let the article hang around as what now appears to be part of the promotion of the group. It can be easily recreated once they do garner adequate coverage in reliable sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should not be deleted because it meets 3 of the criteria for notability set out in WP:BAND

Discussion regarding non-sourcing sources. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article's subject 'Run in Red' has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself

•Criteria 1 include published works in ALL forms

•Joe.ie is indexed in wikipedia
•The sharpe has outlined the musical group as an up and coming →→independent act.

→•The wikipedia indexed Dublin South FM has covered their work.

•Criteria 9 →•Has won first, second or third in a major music competition.

•Criteria 11 →•Has been placed on pandora radio (not their streaming service) their →→privately curated National radio station.

To be indexed the musical group only needs one of the criteria, and the above is multiple reference for three of the criteria. Moonchild101 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Direct from introduction to deletion Process

What is deletion not for?

Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.
Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.

Comment. I've just discovered that the undisambiguated Run in Red was also about the band and was deleted by both Deb and Ritchie333 as an A7; the latter salted it. They and other admins will be able to discern whether this version is better sourced or substantially the same. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's certainly a lot better than the version I deleted, which had no reliable independent references. Deb (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Should Remain

The flagging editor may be working with sockpuppet accounts to initailly discredit and vandalize this article and then flag it for removal.

It appears that the flagging editor is exhibiting predatory deletion habits.

Some articles previously visited by the editor have been removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantis_(brothel)&action=edit&redlink=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_J%C3%B8rgen_Lysglimt&action=edit&redlink=1 comment added by KillickK (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are getting at, KillickK. It sounds like you don't understand this process. Deb (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recieved a notice on my talk page from the flagging editor and then reviewed the contributions and history of both the flagging editor and the article Run in Red (band). It appears that the page was vandalized by freshly created accounts; at which point, and subsequently the flagging editor began requesting AfD process.

Additionally, I am conducting a further analysis of the citations as I have previously edited this page. KillickK 18:29, 13 June (UTC)

@KillickK: Make your case for why this article should be kept under our notability policies rather than casting aspersions. Both Atlantis (brothel) and Hans Jørgen Lysglimt are listed on my user page as articles to which I made considerable improvements: the former I tried damned hard to save at AfD and am still not entirely sure the decision to delete it was not unduly influenced by arguments rooted in the squick factor; the latter was summarily deleted because a banned editor created it, which is a shame. Look again at the history of this article: I came in reverting vandalism and stayed trying to patch up an effort clearly by enthusiastic but inexperienced editors; however, we can't have articles on non-notable bands. If someone can find the needed sources to show they are notable, great. I haven't been able to. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find notoreity in Joe.ie, Pandora Radio, Dublin South FM, Whelan's, Sound Training Production and Hot Press. All of which are cited in the article. KillickK 18:41, 13 June (UTC)

Just because a source is notable enough for a Wikipedia article doesn't mean everything published by that source is valid. The Hot Press sources are literally nothing more than gig listings, as indeed are most of the citations in the article at present. The podcast on Dublin South FM seems to be unavailable now (as does the Pandora broadcast), but in any case, "local radio station plays local band" is nothing out of the ordinary. The IMRO article is a press release put out by the band's label or management. The only independent sources that actually tell you something about the band and look like they might pass RS are the ones from Joe and The Sharpe – the Joe article is just a "band of the day" job, and it's less impressive when you realise that there have been over 600 musical acts featured so far in the series. Richard3120 (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 It also doesn't mean that is should be deleted. What is the quota of mentions to be notable? This band exists, and has broken the glass barrier of recognition amongnst its peers; how then, can you say that is not notable.

The performance listings are used to verify that the band is physically going out an performing in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the US; and is used as a supplement and not to justify notability. If you went through wikipedia and removed all such citations you would have a significantly sparse volume of work.

It also appears that you don't fully understand how pandora works, they curate radio that is broadcast live on demand.

This is not a debate on whether a source is impressive to an editors opinion; that comment you have made shows uninformed bias, with out explanation or enlightenment.(talk) 9:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"What is the quota of mentions to be notable?" According to WP:GNG and WP:NBAND, it's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I have already explained above that there are only two independent sources that cover the subject in depth on the article, and that I'm not sure one of them, The Sharpe, constitutes a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

"This band ... has broken the glass barrier of recognition amongst its peers" - that's a completely unverifiable statement.

"The performance listings are used to verify that the band is physically going out and performing ... If you went through wikipedia and removed all such citations you would have a significantly sparse volume of work" - correct, and that's why we don't have articles for every band or musician who has ever played live, it's part of their job and doesn't make them more notable than every other musical act who does the same thing. In fact very few articles on Wikipedia for musical acts contain concert listings.

"It also appears that you don't fully understand how pandora works" - it's irrelevant whether or not I understand how Pandora works, the point is the link to Pandora is dead and there is no way of verifying the claim that they have been played on Pandora... you're asking us to take your word for it.

"This is not a debate on whether a source is impressive to an editors opinion; that comment you have made shows uninformed bias" - well, actually, a source has to be "impressive" enough to make sure WP:V and WP:GNG are met. There's no evidence of criterion 9 of WP:BAND being met, and no verifiable proof of criterion 11. And criterion 1 is dependent on the sources from Joe and The Sharpe both being considered reliable sources and demonstrating the band's notability. Editors like myself and others voting "delete" are doing so simply by objectively evaluating the band against these criteria, not because they have any particular bias against them. Richard3120 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that the article fails WP:NBAND for the reasons stated by the nominator. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. Sure, the band sound great, have played many shows and have an album about to be released ([8]), but I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage from reliable sources that shows how the band meets the Wikipedia general notability guideline. No reviews, no band profiles, nothing. Maybe this is just a simple case of WP:TOOSOON. — sparklism ^hey! 20:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree — sparklism. Clearly the group have been reviewed on Joe.ie. This is an indexed and verified site in Ireland that you are classifying as irrelevant. The group have also been profiled on several independent Irish music organizations (see garageland and gigonometry). Please note that while this may not interest you, you can not use this as a guideline in making judgement on whether to include or delete an article. Book burning because of ignorance is a slippery slope. Moonchild101 (talk) 9:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Reply. Thanks for the advice Moonchild101, but my !vote still stands. — sparklism ^hey! 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBAND. No need for Moonchild101 to respond to my !vote, simply respect it without comment. Spleodrach (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I respect your right to 'vote' Spleodrach; but this isn't a voting aye or ney scenario; therefore, your 'Fails' WP:NBAND is baseless because the musical group fulfills three of the criteria set out in WP:BAND when it only needs to fulfill one of the criteria. I am certain the admin will note this. Moonchild101 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I asked you respectfully not to comment, but you did by repeating yet again what you or your socks (Schlossbergfes/Dafteire/KillickK) have already said. Leave it out! Spleodrach (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KillickK that this page should remain. It has set a bar being reviewed by the mens journal. This article should remain; in Ireland (Eire) Joe.ie is a substantial journal with a large diverse editorial base and readership. dafteire signed 14:23, 14 June 2018 UTC

Personally I am happy to accept Joe as a reliable source. My query is whether the article in question, an ongoing series whose entire point is to highlight every non-notable act in Ireland, confers more notability on this band than the other 600+ acts the series has also featured. But even if we accept the Joe article as valid, WP:GNG still requires at least one more in-depth article from a publication regarded as reputable by Wikipedia standards. Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a general rule of thumb, if you have to scramble around for sources and can’t easily pull stuff from Rolling Stone, Billboard and The Guardian, there’s no need to have an article here. More to the point, some of my music has appeared in local press and I get royalty statements every now and then; yet somehow I resist the urge to stomp my foot and cry because I don’t have a Wikipedia article on myself. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is an absolute dearth of reliable sources. This is wholly unsatisfactory from the perspective of passing either the most basic requirements of general notability or the specific criteria at WP:NBAND. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remain I think this article should remain. Of the vast amount of artists featured on the Joe.ie article, I found over 50 instances where a band or musical act has been indexed in Wikipedia. The previous comment to vote Delete seems malicious in their intent. Denial of something notable is not due to an agenda to disregard lesser known on a scale of Rolling Stone Magazine to Joe.ie and other independent sources similar. I ask the admin to have respect to the fact that in the WP:NBAND guidlines, there is no mention to a comaparable scale of source; however, if the sources are multiple and independent you must document; furthermore, where there is a debate for AfD and their is not a general consensus, Wikipedia guidelines stipulate the article should remain. Even in the above editors in support of deletion, there is doubt and/or lack of knowledge on the topic for an admin to delete this article. -- Schlossbergfes 14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't !vote "Remain" here, this is an AfD, not Brexit. When you've been here as long as I have, you come across articles like Kuda Bux (band) (now deleted, but for non-admins the opening sentence is "Kuda Bux are a five piece rock band from Wickford, Essex, England. The band takes their name from the old Indian mystic Kuda Bux."), which sat in a completely useless state for ten years and nobody could do anything about. Wikipedia is not the only website in the entire world, and the band will not be wiped out in a Stalinish fashion on the rest of the internet. It's not important to have a Wikipedia article - focus on improving what we already have, such as taking Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs to GA, for example. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response please, there is no need to be aggressive. I simply offered my opinion in this debate and did not, as you say: !vote. Schlossbergfes 16:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Schlossbergfes: They were not being at all aggressive, and saying so does not make it so. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 The use of an exclamation raises tone and the subject was mocking the intellect of the respondent by referencing brexit. Additionally, saying "You don't !vote" is a command that is aggressive.Moonchild101 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonchild101: A couple of points to assist you in the furtherance of your wiki-career.

Please always remember to assume good faith of your fellow editors: assume they are here to help rather than hinder the encyclopaedia.

The exclamation mark, on WP, means not what you think it means :) Please see this explanation and why these proceedings are not a vote. That's what the excl. mark references.

Brexit is irrelevant and clearly a cultural touchstone as to something that is—unlike this AfD—actually a vote.

Saying "You don't vote" = saying "we none of us vote" here.

And please remember to indent your replies to whoecer you are replying to by the use of colons: see WP:INDENT.

Cheers, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129 So Ritchie333 is saying "You don't not vote." see Double negative.

@Moonchild101: I have indented our conversation; this is how it should look. Please also remember to sign your posts using ~~~~, which will automatically insert your signature.

To answer your question (again), no, Ritiche333 wasn't saying you don't not vote, so I don't need to read about double negatives, about which my knowledge already suffices. Ritiche333 was actually saying "You don't get to vote in something that isn't a vote in the first place." Not the same.

Please read all the links you have been given. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Serial Number 54129 has got my intent correctly. Accusing other editors of bad faith and suspecting them of aggressive or malicious activity is not going to get the result you want. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. So let's just stick to reviewing the sources listed in the article. Of the 20 sources, 13 are simply gig listings or links to streaming sites – the second part of criterion 1 of WP:BAND says to exclude "works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates". So these 13 references can be discounted straight away. According to one editor who believes the article should be kept, the band fulfil criterion 11, "has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network", via their appearances on Pandora and Dublin South FM. But as there is no archive of these sites, we can't verify this, so they both fails WP:V, and in any case, we can't tell if they were actually in rotation (i.e. played more than once) or just received a single play. The article from the Irish Music Rights Organisation is a press release from the band's management/label, so it's not independent and also fails criterion 1 of WP:BAND. The Night Nomads and Into the Echo podcast are blogs and fail WP:RS. The Sharpe also appears to fail WP:RS because there's no indication anywhere on its website about how professional its writers are or whether there is any editorial control: I can't find anything about the writer of the piece (and Zuzanna Piasek shouldn't be a difficult name to Google) or any of its other writers, bar one – Tahlia Peppard is a student from Zimbabwe in her final year at university, so she's definitely not a professional writer, and so you assume the others aren't either. That just leaves the one site from Joe the "keep" editors keep harping on about, but WP:BAND requires multiple non-trivial sources, not just one. It's also been suggested that the band pass criterion 9 of WP:BAND, "has won first, second or third place in a major music competition" – firstly, the band are described as "finalists", no indication of a top three placing. Secondly, the Crystal Skull Sessions is far from being a major music competition – it's a standard "local talent contest" with no independent sources indicating its notability. Thirdly, it's disingenuous to link Sin-é in the article to the notable former New York City club of the same name which closed a decade ago – this Sin-é is a Dublin club. So, literally one reliable source in the whole article... it doesn't pass. It could be WP:TOOSOON as already mentioned, and maybe the band will be notable once their records start charting. Richard3120 (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response With that rational on The Sharpe, ANY website could "indicate" how "professional" it is and that's acceptable? I urge the admin to visit thesharpe.com and judge for yourself whether this is a notable source... if it is, in your opinion, then Joe.ie and Thesharpe.com alone are enough the keep this article indexed; let alone the supporting citations for differing sources that affirm that this musical group is active and noteworthy in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Moonchild101 (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my personal rationale, it's determined by WP:RS and WP:V (particularly WP:NEWSBLOG), which state that sources should be written by professional writers and subject to editorial oversight, neither of which appear to apply to The Sharpe. The onus is on you to prove the website meets the Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with Richard3120's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, Richard3120's inputs and notes from other contributors. Namely that the type of coverage currently available is of that type that confirms existence rather than notability, substantially includes republished versions of (often the same) promotional material and press releases, and other trivial coverage. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON. At worst WP:PROMO. (On the latter I would note that the level of noise from new/connected accounts is disquieting. And ultimately likely counter productive.) Guliolopez (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keep arguments are overlooking the key wording in WP:BAND: "musicians and ensembles may be notable..." "May" is different than "is." Coverage in sources need to stand up to scrutiny. There could be even more independent, reliable sources beyond the one or two here, but the coverage needs to be significant. As reiterated by nearly every other delete comment, this is all run-of-the-mill coverage and listings that are the due of any music act that makes the effort to promote themselves and get recognition. Most charitably, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. As it stands now--with one released Ep and evidence of regular performances-- this subject has no noteworthy accomplishment that would give it encyclopedic importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 07:32, 18 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! 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Azad[edit]

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

He is not notable to be included on Wikipedia. This article does not contain news link. All references are blog or self published website, commercial website selling his books. It should be deleted. Adam mission (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet either general notability or notability for authors. Poorly written, promotional in tone, and lacking in good-quality sources. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meet general notability or notability for authors. NC Hasive • talk • 12:24, 18 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 wrong wiki. ENWP does not have such an article but there is one at w:es:Mauricio-José Schwarz. Green Giant (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio-José Schwarz[edit]

· Stats)

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

The article is a vanity Autobiography largely written by the subject under false names (at least three of the "editors" are known aliases of the subject -including his tweeter handle, which can be verified with a simple search) therefore not meeting NAUTHOR. It seems the article is not relevant, lacking notability, quoting mostly self-published books. It refers to authorship of "several" movie scripts, highlighting one:"El libro de García" Directed by Carlos García Agraz. Said "film" has no IMDb entry (it was a school project). The director Carlos García Agraz does have an IMDb entry, but it does not list said film, and his films were not widely distributed, only showed at local film festivals. The biography also mentions "20 or so song lyrics" for a self-published local music group without a wide audience (Transfusión).

Many (if not all) "awards" are dubious: - 2005: "Finalist" in a photographic contest of a local photo club. - 2002: 2nd place in a photographic contest at a local bar (La Bellota). - 1997: "Award" Really writing-contest finalist (not even winner) in a low-circulation magazine (Semana Negra). - 1994: "Finalist" of another writing-contest for a low-circulation magazine (Mas Alla). - 1994: "Finalist" of yet another low-circulation (local at city level) magazine (Kalpa) writing-contest. (etc.)

Does not use WP:SELFPUB

The article is an intended for self-promotion, hence the page is full of conflicts of interest. the article is likely commissioned native advertising, and is thus excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwerowar (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 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 CBeebies shows. (non-admin closure) Strikerforce^Talk 14:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot Bots[edit]

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

WP:DEPRODed by editor who does not understand that WP:TVSHOW does not trump WP:GNG – IOW, a show airing on a national network can be presumed to be notable, but there are exceptions (esp. for reality-type TV programs, and childrens TV shows, as this one is). In any case, current article does not demonstrate the notability of the subject under WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Single-season TV show that aired for approximately 3 months. No RS in sight. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of CBeebies shows Clearly does meet TVSHOW, but it needs more than an WP:ITEXISTS article for sure with nothing more that tells us it was another CBeebies bomb. This is barely more than nothing and if I'm convinced to keep, we need much more for this to be a full-fledged article. Nate • (chatter) 22:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVSHOW actually says "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." The key words there are "generally" and "likely" – just because a TV program airs nationally does not guarantee it will be "notable": it just makes it a lot more likely. There are exceptions, and reality-type shows and childrens TV shows (like this one) are in many cases not notable, even when aired "nationally". This is one of those. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, it was a definite '26-and-out' without anyone taking notice or buying the toys, but it still aired. A redirect is better than a redlink. Nate • (chatter) 23:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of CBeebies shows as the original page creator. Go Jetters started airing around about the same time and started out like a stub just like this page did - that one grew in size while this one went out completely. There's not enough sources to write with on this series. -Nott Nott 10:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of CBeebies shows as WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 12:13, 18 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! 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Elisabeth Robertson[edit]

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

Appears to be a vanity biography largely written by the subject and not meeting NAUTHOR. Every book appears to be published by a vanity press "Dog Ear Publishing offers something incredibly dynamic to authors looking to self-publish". One award received is highly dubious, issued by "American Book Fest" which, near as I can tell by visiting their website, does nothing other than issue this self-nominated award and doesn't even have a listed phone number. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was alerted to this AfD through a question from Bri on my talk page. I went back and rechecked the databases. Nothing about her is turning up in EBSCO, HighBeam or on Newspapers.com. She doesn't pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MLB; if they say it's gone—it's gone. Don't look at me, I only work here. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin where people engage in self-promotion. This reminds me of the person I knew who would have created an article on herself in Wikipedia if it did not directly advise against it. She was convinced she was notable for being an editor on a Harry Potter fan-fiction website. Maybe moderator would be a better word for what she did. Sort of like all the articles we have on moderators of Lois and Clark fan fiction websites. Oh wait, we dont. There is a reason that we have a rule do not create an article on yourself. Too many people think they are much more important than they are. Especially too many 22-year-olds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about being a fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts. Is that not notable? scope_creep (talk) 22:30, 19 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

585 AM[edit]

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

No indication of notability Polyamorph (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most terrestrial broadcast stations are notable, and this is a set-index article for a common way to describe them. It's very incomplete, but other stations do exist; some are listed at List of European medium wave transmitters and there are others in Australia (such as ABC News (radio) in Perth). power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one station (non-notable by the way) does not meet WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or keep. If only one station in the world operates at this frequency and an article exists, then redirect to that station. If there are other stations operating on that frequency, keep and add redlinks for the other stations, which are automatically notable. Use the same principles as any other disambiguation page Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, all licensed radio stations are notable, and so are lists of them and disambiguation pages that list multiple licensed radio stations . Second, there are many other radio stations that broadcast on the frequency. See this list. Third, there are similar list articles for other broadcast frequencies, and AM 600 is a good example of a list of notable broadcasters in several different countries. Fourth, we should not have a rule that lists of AM radio stations operating at multiples of 10 kHz (the standard in the United States and Canada) are notable while those at other frequencies are not. Intentionally or not, this series of nominations targets non-North American stations and would reinforce the underrepresentation of the non-English-speaking world in the English Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You may want to review how Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias apply to this article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:43, 18 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! 23:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanté Reese[edit]

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

While accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG, her positions and citation count don't qualify her under WP:NSCHOLAR. The one in-depth reference (the Epicurious article) is an interview, and thereby can't be used for notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon for this young assistant professor. Article written in good faith by a student editor without knowing about WP:NPROF. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I share the sentiment expressed above that this article was written in good faith but just too soon. An interview can contribute to notability, since being interviewed by someone other than your own organization can indicate that you are seen as an expert in your subject. (See WP:IV § Notability.) However, I don't think one interview is enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C7. In addition, there's an article in the WSJ that I don't currently have access to read. (The news search that turned that up also found this post by the ACLU.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines. Interviews do not contribute to notability, what is needed is indepdent, 3rd party sources, and interviews are inherently not such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass NPROF and does not pass GNG. Natureium (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only 33 cites on GS (more than 1000 would be expected) fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 15 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! 23:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie A. Thomas (Anthropologist)[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and as an assistant professor, with virtually zero citation count, doesn't appear to pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have zero notability as an academic to satisfy any of the criteria per WP:NACADEMIC. It seems that a book by the person in question may be released later, and if there are enough significant reviews, it may justify an article about the author per WP:NAUTHOR, but before that, there is nothing to warrant an article. Hzh (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Jamie A. Thomas. – Joe (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article currently has a tag saying that the subject of the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. Vorbee (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon for this young assistant professor. One of two articles written in good faith by a student editor without knowing about WP:NPROF. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether or not the article currently has a notability tag is beside the point (after all, any article can get tagged by an editor trying to push an agenda; notability is what we're here to decide). That said, I have the strong feeling that this article is just too soon. It's hard, although not impossible, for assistant professors to meet WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This short article is virtually content-free, but contains errors of grammar and/or punctuation and spelling. It is not doing any good for the subject person, whose website mentioned in the article is presumably much more professional. The subject could well be embarrassed by this Wikipedia article with its useless and ungrammatical assertion that "Thomas's responsiblities as a member of the Communications Collective of the Association of Black Anthropologists is to keep members informed and spread awareness of what the association is up to." --Doncram (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: title wrong If this article survives AfD, please move it to ~~"...(anthropologist)" with a small "a".~~ the undisambiguated Jamie A. Thomas (and add dab page entry at Jamie Thomas (disambiguation)). Thanks. PamD 17:18, 13 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! 23:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fereidoun Khoshnoud[edit]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 11:49, 13 June 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 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is clearly promotional. 344917661X (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWP:GNG not established. Clearly a promotional article. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've restored the original sourced article, the newer version upon which this AfD is based was pure promo/spam.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at users and IP addresses like Abbaszadehir, EmadBadpour, 188.229.0.216 and 204.18.156.160 it clearly shows this page was created by paid editors who have been involved in socket-puppetry on Wikipedia. These 2 accounts and IP addresses may all well indeed link to one person itself if investigated further, this page is a clear example of what self-promotion looks like on Wikipedia rather than something that should be included in a Encyclopedia. I suggest it should be deleted immediately by an admin as this page goes against all the values of the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 12:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. I'm not seeing notability from the sources, either. (although I can't read Persian, I dropped the pages into Google Translate) Vermont (talk) 23:48, 14 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. This article is blatant advertising (WP:CSD#G11). The subject may indeed be notable, feel free to re-create from scratch per WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Hanzl[edit]

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

Only hits on the internet seem to indicate local notability, only 84 or so mention anything outside her hometown. I am not sure if she is notable enough for a wikipedia article. 2Joules (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has an exhibition devoted to her work (also exhibited as a larger group of artists in Austria and abroad) therefore may qualify WP:NARTIST. The coverage in Austria would satisfy WP:GNG. The nomination does not cite any guideline to make any sense. Hzh (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:42, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Kumar (director)[edit]

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

Non-notable director/producer of some non-notable films with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable film maker, fails GNG. FITINDIA 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:DIRECTOR This Director has create a movie on Muzaffarnagar riots. Which is Very controversial and attract many news sources. You can get the result by this. [9]. Alternatively this is neither a promotion nor a harmfull article. this article only appreciate the hard work of a director, Nothing else.Kaushikdjay (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Kaushikdjay (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@Kaushikdjay: As the creator of the article it is reasonable that you think it should be kept, but you'll need to provide some sources that establish notability. Out of Muzaffarnagar: The Burning Love none of his films is notable so director on one notable film is not enough unless the individual receives a major award or in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. also, as a marketing guy you need to disclose your relationship to the topic in question per WP:COI and WP:PAID. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 06:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: As you have stated above that his first movie is notable and I have another movie named as Pakda Pakdi Which is produced by Harish kumar and Starred Ashok Saraf. This movie is also notable in marathi cinema but there are not online presence of marathi cinema on web. But It is a big in marathi^[1]^[2]^[3] and I am not the marketing guy. I wants to helps wikipedia so that I am putting the pages from imdb and after a research write it here. Now I am trying to create article about khushali kumar. you can help me with this. I am new here but that doesn't mean I can't defend myself. Kaushikdjay (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.marathimovieworld.com/news/pakda-pakdi-music-launch.php
^ https://www.marathimovieworld.com/news/pakda-pakdi-music-launch.php
^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/punes-landmark-cinema-hall-moves-high-court/articleshow/14955174.cms

@Kaushikdjay: The sources you provided above are not reliable except TOI which is a passing mention and is insufficient to support notability also, are you sure? because there is some off-wiki evidence that proves you are the same person who is into marketing business. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Superb rebuttals by GSS......Why was this relisted?~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNP, as subject's works also do not meet WP:NN. Unfortunately, though effort has been put into writing the article, this does not change the fact that the article is not notable enough. Egroeg5 (talk) 07:15, 21 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Vinante[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in press and secondary sources of this restaurant singer and political worker: a Daily Mail article which only mentions him as providing a selfie with Philip May in a photo caption, a Telegraph article which doesn't mention him by name at all (just a photo of "a guitarist and singer entertain customers"), a minor summary article in the Italian press about the inaugural meeting of his political group. Other Italian sources given are dead links or do not appear to mention him.

Article was written by User:Joan Bozoky, who shares a name with the CEO of the Green Room Club, of which Vinante is a director. From the talk page, the notability issue has been rejected by Bozoky in the past. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:04, 13 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) Strikerforce^Talk 14:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mabini-Borja, Dinagat Islands[edit]

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

This barangay (village) in the Dinagat Islands does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The sources on the article are Google maps and Philippines Places which do not provide much information. Other web sources just mention the baarangay by name. Jollibinay (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does coverage exist in the other local languages? 165.91.13.29 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE as an officially recognised populated place. Existence verified in multiple sources [10][11][12][13][14][15]. SpinningSpark 22:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark It's not about its existence, but rather its notability. It appears on maps and censuses, but that's it.Jollibinay (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...which means that at the very least we could expand the page by adding population information and map co-ordinates. We also have a source on flood risk. From WP:GEOLAND; "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." From WP:PRESERVE; "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." So in guidelines and policy we should not delete this page. At the very worst it would be merge and redirect, but I would not support even that, at least not until we have heard from someone with access to a regional newspaper archive. There are quitee a few results coming up on HighBeam that look promising from the snippets but only the opening para is accessible e.g. bridge opening mining storm flooding. SpinningSpark 16:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE. It clearly exists, it's clearly a legally recognized populated place. In this case, that's enough. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, as a Barangay, meets criteria. MB 17:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and all other barangay pages of Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands to the town's article. All of these pages contain no cited information besides stating the barangay being part of Cagdianao. GEOLAND is just a guideline and just states that legally recognized places are typically notable (not always).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave three links to Highbeam results that go beyond a GEOLAND argument, and there are more available. Have you considered those? SpinningSpark 13:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve — according to page 21 of this government document, the barangay had 812 people in 2010 and 912 people in 2015. It would seem to be large enough to warrant at least a short article. Green Giant (talk) 18:04, 13 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mwangwego alphabet[edit]

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

The notability is really unclear and not demonstrated. Holding lectures is certainly not a sign of notability, by itself. One quote from a government minister is also not a sign of notability. The claim about "slowly gaining a following" is unreferenced. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malawi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discussed in detail in "The Politics of Malawi’s Alphabet" in Speak. In 2012 there was an ISO proposal to encode the script in unicode. Briefly mentioned in the book African Literacies: Ideologies, Scripts, Education, also here and here. SpinningSpark 22:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite borderline:
- The only non-trivial coverage is in the Speak article, but is it a notable reliable source?
- The Unicode proposal doesn't include published examples of use (page 8, 6b).
- The other sources only mention Mwangwego trivially.
The general notability guideline says that multiple sources are generally expected, even if not required, and suggests including topics that are only mentioned in one source in another article. I'd be OK with having this mentioned in Languages of Malawi (currently redirects to Demographics) and in Chewa language, but I'm reluctant about the need for a separate article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to merge and redirect this to another article you could have done it quietly and (probably) uncontroversially without bringing it to the circus of AfD. By bringing it here, you are declaring that you don't think the information should be on Wikipedia in any form. SpinningSpark 15:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge" or "Redirect" (as well as "Keep") are possible and reasonable outcomes of an AfD discussion.

An AfD proposer can change their mind, too. For example, when I started this AfD, I wasn't aware of the Unicode proposal and I thought about complete deletion. The new info makes me lean more toward "merge and redirect" than "delete". But not to keeping in its current form. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Spinningspark but I think the article can be greatly improved. Perhaps the corresponding Portuguese and Dutch versions might be useful. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No reason was given for questioning the reliability of the Speak magazine article. This is the organ of Journalists for Human Rights and if any profession should know about fact-checking, it is journalists. The JHR site also contains this posting which may count as RS under WP:NEWSBLOG or under WP:SPS (because the poster was the senior writer for the Encyclopedia of Manitoba). Other sources that discuss this subject in reasonable depth include Omniglot (writing systems and languages encyclopedia), Scriptsource, Kumatoo, and MEMIM Encyclopedia. SpinningSpark 10:31, 17 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! 23:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parkietenbos[edit]

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

PROD declined for reasons I can't possibly fathom. This is a dumpsite of no particular notability, therefore the article should be deleted. There is no reason to maintain it under WP:GEO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the PROD because the original concern (that it incorrectly labeled the subject as a village) was addressed. I did not check for notability. Maybe sources exist in the local languages? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the stub as it stands isn't good, but a search did come up with a few sources in three different languages. I'm not saying it's notable or not notable - would this be infrastructure under WP:GEOFEAT? There's a chance it's notable and could be expanded. SportingFlyer talk 18:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, do you mind linking to some of those sources to allow everyone to evaluate them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of these establish notability, but could help build out the article if notable. I've starred the ones I think are best on notability grounds. [16] [17] [18] [19]* [20]* [21]* [22]* [23] [24]* (among others) SportingFlyer talk 21:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst merge to Aruba. There is some decent coverage in sources [25][26] which would allow some expansion. SpinningSpark 23:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, I'd support a merge, but I don't think there's enough substantial coverage (on what you've posted anyway) to support a keep. That book result you posted is a single paragraph in a tour guide type book, it's not that substantive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page originally described Parkietenbos as a village. There is some evidence in sources that this is a populated place as several businesses give it as their address: Rodoco Shipping and Trading SA [27], Aruba All Cargo Co., Demo Aruba MV, Ecury Motors, Ltd. This book description of the dump says the dump is "located in Parkietenbos", not that the dump is called Parkietenbos. As a populated place this should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. At the very least we can say that there is more going on there than just a dump. Also Historia di Aruba: 1499-1824 mentions Parkietenbos but I can't make any sense of the google machine translation of "Nan a establece nan mes na diferente lugar, entre otro na Daimari, Santa Marta, Buena Vista y Parkietenbos principalmente. Asina e teranan cerca yama "cunuco" a bin den existencia. Cada colonizador a desaroya nan pida tereno..." At least we can say from that that the place existed historically. SpinningSpark 22:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a named place, not just a landfill. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 13 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Veenstra[edit]

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

doubtful notability, single source is author's own very bloggy-blog, in Dutch; no edits outside basic maintenance and bots have been done in years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no indepdent sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, cant find an article on Veestra in dutch WP drat!, from his website has received a number of awards (under Biografie) (a couple superfically appear regional in nature), but cannot find dutchWP articles on them, checking WorldCat his works are held in a handful of libraries (not surprising for books written in a regional language), WorldCat does have the following, some of which appear to be reviews of his work:

Wilde gaanzen, Fluitekruud, Een vlinder van zulver, Roman-debuut: een vlinder van zulver-, Naachs goelen de honnen, Boeiende verhaelen in 'De boot naor Valhöll, Ferhalen fan in byldzjend ferteller : 'Een meenske is gien eerpel': nije ferhalebondel fan Johan Veenstra, Verrassend Stellingwarfs, "Toegift" dadde roman van Johan Veenstra., De wereld is gek : boekenijs, Geen Saxonia, maar Longerlaand : harje which if reviews would back a "keep" but again language barrier prevents confirmation of them, that said, i am loathe to outright deletion ("surprise, surprise, coola":)), suggest that if not kept, then a sentence or two can be added to the Stellingwarfs dialect article. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have just found the Foundation Stellingwarver Schrieversronte, an organisation that preserves and promotes the Stellingwarfs dialect, on a page that is in english (hooray!) they state "Johan Veenstra is one of the most fruitful authors. He wrote 21 books in the Stellingwarvian language; volumes of poetry, short stories and romans too.", so no. 2 of WP:ANYBIO may be invoked? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:40, 2 June 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) 01:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~., Although if there were any WP:RS at all I would suggest MERGE to Stellingwarfs dialect, the tiny language in which he writes. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if anyone manages to find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC) I will withdraw because I do not have time today to read the sources below. There is no reason why a contemporary writer in Occitan, Cornish or Stellingwarfs cannot be notable, but we do need sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at utter least merge into Stellingwarfs dialect. Coverage is regional, which is not unexpected considering the tiny language he writes in, but *nowhere* near as local as the area in which said language is spoken. Said tiny language/dialect is pretty much limited to an area of two muncipialities with a total population between them of ~50,000. The coverage is mostly local to Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe and Overijssel with the occasional mention outside those. However, that's four Dutch provinces, several steps up from how local said language is. He is regarded as a very major part of the Stellingwarfs literary movement and a fairly important figure in the Frisian literary movement; within his area of expertise his body of work is significant and well-known (esp. when considering he was made Knight in the Order of Orange Nassau for it.) Sources unfortunately are just about all either in Dutch, Frisian or a specific dialect. If any specific translation is needed, feel free to ping me.

Significant coverage in the Leeuwarder Courant.
Significant coverage by sirkwy, a website of Tresoar, the Frisian History and Literature Center. More specifically, sirkwy is Tresoar's website "for documentary information about the Frisian literature" ("foar dokumintêre ynformaasje oer de Fryske literatuer").
Above trivial but not particularly significant coverage in Streektaalzang, a website dedicated to dialect music in the Netherlands.
A review of Fluitekruud. It is almost certainly insufficiently independent considering Veenstra's position as staffmember at said journal at time of the review. However, it is relevant because it makes mention of another review, by Tiny Mulder in Friesch Dagblad on 12-11-1977 (that'd be 12 November, Netherlands uses day-month-year): "Eers as Tiny Mulder in et Friesch Dagblad van 12-11-1977 mien ik dat et verhael Requiem veur Eli wel liekegoed uutwarkt hieten mag as de verhaelen Heit en Fluitekruud." ("Just as Tiny Mulder in the Friesch Dagblad of 12-11-1977 am I of the opinion that the story 'Requiem veur Eli' can be called equally well developed as the stories 'Heit' and 'Fluitekruid'.") Unfortunately, considering the age of the mentioned review, I have been unable to find it online and do not have access to a physical copy either.
Similarly, I have found traces but no online available copies of several other reviews and articles ranging from the mid-70s to about the start of this century.
Significant coverage of both Veenstra and his work in Frisian literary journal Trotwaer by Tineke J. Steenmeijer-Wielenga.
Significant mention of Veenstra within the larger Frisian literature in "Zolang de wind van de wolken waait. Geschiedenis van de Friese literatuur" 2006, a book about the history of Frisian literature. To cite part: "De gangmakers van het eerste uur, genoemde Bloemhoff, Pieter Jonker (*1952) en Johan Veenstra (*1946) vormen nog steeds de kern van de Stellingwerver taalbeweging." ('The pacesetters of the first hour, being Bloemhoff, Piet Jonker (*1952) and Johan Veenstra (*1946) still form the core of the Stellingwarfs literary movement')
Was made Knight in the Order of Orange Nassau in 2001 for "all his work in and for the Stellingwarfs dialect" ("voor zijn werk in en voor het Stellingwarfs"/"foar syn krewearjen foar de Stellingwerfske taal"), as mentioned (in sources about him/his work but not specifically about him being knighted, as well as in sources about the people made Knight in the Order of Oranje) here ("Yn 2001 is Veenstra foar syn krewearjen foar de Stellingwerfske taal beneamd ta Ridder in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau."), here ("Johan Veenstra is in 2001 benoemd tot Ridder in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau voor zijn werk in en voor Weststellingwerf"); source is reliable but essentially trivial as far as coverage/notability goes, here ("In 2001 werd Veenstra benoemd tot Ridder in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau.") and here ("De heechst útrikte ûnderskieding yn Fryslân is de Ridder in de orde van Oranje Nassau. 21 Friezen krigen dy opspjelde. Under har binne de skiedend boargemaster Koopmans, kabaretiere Leny Dijkstra en skriuwer Johan Veenstra.") among other places.
Was nominated for the "Streektaalprijs" ("Dialect prize") from Dagblad van het Noorden, 2007 edition (list of nominations of the 2007 prize); won in 2009 and again in 2015 (article in Dagblad van het Noorden regarding the 2015 win which also mentions the 2009 win), which was also covered by media and organizations other than the Dagblad van het Noorden such as Omrop Fryslân here (in regards to the 2015 win, but also mentions the 2009 win), former Dutch literary journal, now literary weblog Tzum here (about 2015; mentions 2009), Stichting Woest & Ledig, an organization "with as aims the development, stimulation and promotion of art and culture in North-East Netherlands" ("heeft als doel het ontwikkelen, stimuleren en onder de aandacht brengen van kunst- en cultuuruitingen in Noord-Oost Nederland.") (here, regarding his 2009 win), RTV Noord here (re:2015 win) and the Leeuwarder Courant here (re: 2015; mentions 2009)
Received a bunch of more local prizes as well. As those convey basically no notability, not gonna list them here.

Per request above, also pinging @E.M.Gregory:. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've made a start at improving the article per the sources I've listed above. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by AddWittyNameHere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 13 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! 23:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MENA WHRD Coalition[edit]

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

I had prodded this article with reason "No independent reliable sources seem to discuss this organisation indepth, all we have are self-published sources and reprints of their statements and press releases. No better sources for "MENA WHRD Coalition" or "Regional Coalition of Women Human Rights Defenders" could be found. Fails WP:N."

Since then, some sources have been added[28], but none of these corrects the original problem.

There are no independent, reliable sources about this organisation; all we have are posts by members (like the posts from OpenDemocracy or Ghazal), press releases, and posts from connected organisations (other human rights organisations like "Worldwide Movement for Human Rights" or cihrs.org. Fram (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. This content belongs on the org's website, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 20 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! 23:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LogTrust[edit]

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

Information available is limited to press releases and notices. Does not meet currnet requirements of WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found, what comes up is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Raising $35M in venture funding is not an indicator of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 17 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. This is one of those that comes from reading comments not counting. The keep arguments largly assert notability but the sourcing provided isnt reliable. The only decent source offered (the mirror) is a tabloid and therefore not an RS. That leaves the keep side with no policy based arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superkombat Fighting Championship[edit]

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

Persistently re-created, this (and related) articles have been deleted at least six times that I'm aware of, generally because of lack of coverage in reliable sources, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:EVENT. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination). Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding:

2018 in SUPERKOMBAT
2017 in SUPERKOMBAT
2016 in SUPERKOMBAT
2015 in SUPERKOMBAT
2014 in SUPERKOMBAT
2013 in SUPERKOMBAT
2012 in SUPERKOMBAT
2011 in SUPERKOMBAT
Speedy delete and salt - WP:G4 x3, previously salted. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 18:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The article was deleted at the start of the promotion in 2011, since then it won the best promotion of the year in kickboxing in 2011 and was nominated once again in 2016. This is part of the kickboxing history and since kickboxing doesn't hold a Boxrec it's hard to find this info ever again collected like this. They had an event with 34,000 people attending, it was best attendance in the history of this sport in Europe. It produced several champions for Glory (kickboxing) which is now number 1 and new K-1. In Europe it was on Eurosport for years, also it's a broadcast now in China, Brazil or CBS Sports. Please be objective and read the article! Do you even know Rico Verhoeven, Alex Pereira (kickboxer), Benjamin Adegbuyi, Pavel Zhuravlev, Hesdy Gerges etc they are all in Glory now and champions. We have another 10-15 kickboxing promotions and most of them are even less notable. So SUPERKOMBAT can't be kept but we have Absolute Championship Berkut, Enfusion, Final Fight Championship, King of Kings (kickboxing), Wu Lin Feng, Glory of Heroes and not just Glory, K-1 and Kunlun? Why so much hate? Because it's well documented? I inform myself every time here. There are years with Superkombat, all sourced, you don't know what you are talking about. ILoveCasablanca (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, it seems that the article was previously deleted because of the war between MMA users against kickboxing users. But since 2011 which was the start of the promotion, maybe it was not notable then, it really became notable. Believe me. ILoveCasablanca (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)— ILoveCasablanca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

ILoveCasablanca, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF Jayjg ^(talk)

Strong keep - At one time one of the more meaningful kickboxing promotions in the world and easily wiki notable. Also asking for speedy deletion seems very inappropriate for an article made 4 and a half years ago. ShadessKB (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added refs to mirror.co.uk, as.com, yahoo, china.com.cn and ifeng.com. Unneeded as they are when the article was already fine enough. In general should have probably been tagged for notability and not instantly go for the delete. Half of the previous nominations weren't about this article and/or didn't even reach consensus for deletion so using those as reasoning for this makes no sense. ShadessKB (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an Aussie, I can really say Wikipedia informs me about kickboxing (my favourite sport). These are very useful articles. SuperKombat is a international promotion, Paul Slowinski or Ben Edwards fought there. — 110.21.72.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete and salt: Based on the previous AfDs, as well as a lack of sustained coverage in reliable sources, and even, to some extent, a lack of notability: it ought not be incumbent on the reader to determine whether, say, LiverKick or Bloody Elbow have independent editorial integrity (nor do I speculate on such a matter). There's no sustained coverage in the United States, the United Kingdom (The Mirror aside), Australia, or France. Fightmag might suffice, but more than two sources are needed for a good article. I cannot, and do not, evaluate the suitability of Combat Press, but that's a negative for the continuation of this article. Not every major event or promotion requires a Wikipedia page. This is one of those cases. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 04:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Javert2113:

-There isn't a lack of coverage in reliable sources.

-Sustained coverage isn't a criteria for companies/promotions and neither is coverage in specific countries or languages.

-Not every thing requires a wiki page is true but if a thing passes the requirements it can have one. And this is one of those cases.

Reasoning for the delete and salt votes baffle me.

Again half of the previous AfDs aren't about the company and/or didn't even reach consensus. Also reasons for those were slightly different than here so past deletions shouldn't bare any weight here. If I registered sock puppet accounts and made a bunch of articles about iPhone asdasd123 and those then got deleted. They wouldn't be reasons to delete the main article for Apple but that seems to be the logic used here for the delete and salt votes. ShadessKB (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete due to lack of reliable third person sources.Dwanyewest (talk)
Strong keep - Superkombat still one of the biggest kickboxing in the world and was the main plataform for a lot of kickboxers highly known these days. The event still notable by the kickboxing community and fans, also still delivering high rated fighters like Cristian Spetcu and Adrian Maxim(Wu Lin Feng former champion), as others examples Mfnuf 8 June 2018
Comment I have been involved in some, but not all, of the previous AfD discussions and I'd like to make a few points based on the comments I'm reading here. The fact that this promotion's main article has had 3 previous deletion discussions is an indication that its notability is highly questioned, but doesn't mean it should automatically be deleted again (if its sourcing has been significantly improved). Most of the article's current sources appear to be routine sports reporting of results and fight announcements, which is insufficient to show notability. Some of the claims of being notable also focus on being nominated for some "promotion of the year awards" which are of dubious notability. Also, claiming the promotion is notable because of who has fought in one of its events runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED. I would propose that those who claim this promotion is notable simply list a few of the articles that show significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. If the promotion is as notable as claimed, these should not be hard to find. If they can't be found, then Superkombat doesn't meet WP:GNG and is not WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-It's written in the article, best promotion of the year 2011 and nominated again in 2016. From today's Liverkick article, which is one of the largest kickboxing newspapers if not the largest: SuperKombat - one of the kickboxing meccas of the world and it seems that now it's the first kickboxing promotion which will make movies with its fighters (just like the UFC, K-1 didn't do that in the sport). SuperKombat announced on Tuesday the formation of SuperFilm, a brand of the SK Global family, in conjunction with Hollywood producers Moshe Diamant & Christopher Milburn. Maybe you know Moshe Diamant a huge producer for Van Damme, Lundgren and others. They will be all over the Unites States now. Eduard Irimia Establishes SuperFilm Alongside Seasoned Producers Some users only talk about Great Britain in Europe but Superkombat got recognition there by The Mirror or some other gazzettes and also in Europe there is not only England. Marca (newspaper) article for instance: Frank Muñoz, campeón mundial de Superkombat Or in Gazeta Sporturilor, Prosport, tons of articles. I believed as a kickboxing promotion they are a lot more covered than the other promotions of Europe. After all we had the opinions of some kickboxing users on this section of comments. It's a win-win situation for all, Wikipedia gets traffic also with kickboxing, and the readers/ followers are also happy since kickboxing has no Boxrec. ILoveCasablanca (talk • contribs) 09:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep Papaursa claims I would propose that those who claim this promotion is notable simply list a few of the articles that show significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. If the promotion is as notable as claimed, these should not be hard to find. You don't understand the problematics (hope your're not an admin). Here is an example. You have wiki on kim kardashian. She is obviously considered wikinotable (regardless my opinion, she is well known). Do you know how hard it is nowadays to find her full sex tape, now after all those years. Of someone "so notable". Finding resources for many sports is more difficult as years pass because they are not adequately kept. Even of huge sports; exceptions are some "american sports" like baseball and football, soccer and some more. That is wiki's value. And all this talk about notability. Can you not think for yourselves??? If its champions and competitors later became champions of the biggest kickboxing organization does it not say something. Do you need a front page cover of NY times that says "hey wiki's (name of admin), (name of subject) is notable". Unable of deduction, are you?? 213.149.61.204 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read WP:N which gives the basic description of what's required to show notability. It's not about who or what you or I consider notable, it's about what the rest of the world has deemed worth of notice. The fact that you imply sources can't be found supports the argument that the topic is not notable. Also remember, this isn't about individual fighters--it's about the organization itself. Papaursa (talk) 23:03, 20 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melise de Winter[edit]

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

PROD tag was removed, nominating for AFD. Only has 2 valid sources, the other is a children's wiki. Entire Voice Overs section is unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 09:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When you see a weak article about a resident of a non-English-speaking country, checking the Wikipedia for that person's language is often worthwhile. The Dutch Wikipedia at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melise_de_Winter has a longer article about her. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has had prominent roles in at least two Dutch television series which have articles on the Dutch wikipedia and so passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 20:21, 13 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! 23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angel CoFund[edit]

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like non-notable corporate spam. Sourcing is WP:SPIP and fails the new and improved WP:NCORP. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being government-backed, it certainly isn't what I'd consider run of the mill. Scholarly articles [1] [2] discuss the fund at length; easy to miss since they fully spell out "Angel Co-Investment Fund," but given the descriptions inline it is the same fund. Pegnawl (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: & @Misterpottery: in light of the scholarly articles I tracked down above, will you keep your votes as delete or change? Happy to update the entry to include these refs, but would rather not put in the effort if a deletion is pending. Thank you. Pegnawl (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to keep corporate spam based on an scholarly source that has a total of 7 citations. In other words, the academic community doesn’t think that highly of your source. My vote remains to delete with fire. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only provided the first two scholarly articles I found, with 7 and 17 citations respectively. I'm very interested in your metrics for deducing that the academic community doesn't care about these papers; there were others, but you're right, # of citations is lacking, as compared to... Well, that's the thing. What is the baseline for this field? A super generic search on the same topic doesn't show a plethora of citations for any of the results. My go-to is to judge # of citations by release date, authors (in this case appears to be a power couple from Middlesex), journal reputability, and the reputability of author(s)/journal(s) the citations are coming from.

Appreciate your thoughts if you care to expand. Pegnawl (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven citations for a paper is very low. Here is a semi-randomly selected paper from notable academics in business. Google lists 183 citations. 7 and 17 citations is pretty low in most disciplines. Also, to be frank, while this is clear that it doesn't meet NCORP, I don't really care if it does: it is still a WP:NOTSPAM fail which makes passing WP:N impossible, regardless of the sourcing. This article also just happens to have crap sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for humoring me! While I will note that the paper you provided as example has over 30 years on the others, I do understand your perspective, and am appreciative of the effort. Pegnawl (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; the sources offered at this AfD are not convincing. Being government-back is not a guarantee of notability, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @K.e.coffman: Pardon my slowness, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the rejection of the scholarly refs. Per WP:NCORP, listed under "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement" is "A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization." Can I ask, in what way are the scholarly articles cited above not convincing? Same/similar thought process to TonyBallioni? Thank you. Pegnawl (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:05, 17 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! 23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Equity Partners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND Misterpottery (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 17 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sansaar Sukher Hoy Romonir Guney[edit]

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

No reliable sources found even in Bengali language....Delete — F R ⁺ 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 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! 23:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension (science fiction)[edit]

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

Appears to be a work of WP:OR with no reliable sources supporting the article's conclusions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elder race -- The Anome (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elder race is an entirely different concept. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete One could propose such a trope in SF, but this nugget of WP:OR isn't it, and if there is real literary analysis out there to which reference can be made, it's anyone's guess whether they would use this name for it. Mangoe (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. It's possible that enough academic study of the "ascend to a higher plane" trope exists that an article could be written on this topic, but even then, I'd argue that we lose nothing by scrapping this page and starting from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 13 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 redirect to Ivan Doroschuk. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mote in God's Eye (demo album)[edit]

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

This unreleased demo, see WP:FUTUREALBUM, is not notable per WP:NMUSIC. No coverage by reliable sources has been found; possible/likely WP:LINKVIO issues. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist (Ivan Doroschuk). Viable search term, as it seems to exist, but doesn't meet the WP:GNG as long as it didn't receive any third party coverage (all sources are just Youtube song uploads at this point.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:21, 13 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! 23:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockstack[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. Created by Special:Contributions/Guylepage3 with few other contributions outside this topic. With $4M in venture funding and per review of available sources, it's clearly WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Scholar appears to be showing significant coverage, while some of that is WP:SPIP there do appear to be several independent references ... eg ISBN:1983910821 Anderson; https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8291986/. Creating author apparently not informed by nom.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reference namechecks the company but does not provide in-depth information on the company. At most it discusses the technology developed by the company. The reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The initial article lede is more about the technology than the company .. and prior to this edit the infobox was software not the company.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 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) 01:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should be about the project not the company. The blockstream project has importance in the history of blockchain technology: it is a preeminent example of an 'overlay' system, a chain that runs on top of another. Also, because it switched its overlay from one blockchain (namecoin) to another (bitcoin), it acts as a powerful example of the robust nature of 'overlays'.Acuster (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete It does have a large reference footprint in GScholar, but I'm not seeing papers that build on this idea and move forward with it; instead, it come across as everyone who does a paper on any blockchaining idea has the same section of name-dropping every other idea in the field, whether they use it or not. Therefore the large number of cites is a function of the current interest in blockchains in general, not interest in this particular idea. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant RS coverage not found?" Uh.... hello!!!!! These are a like, a billion independent sources where nearly 90-percent or more of their content is about Blockstack: Forbes, two CoinDesk sources, Silicon Angle, the GScholar article mentioned above, Wired, all over the course of two years and all cited in the article!!!! "the large number of cites is a function of the current interest in blockchains in general, not interest in this particular idea." So what, they're still covering Blockstack! And that's just the beginning of it all. Clearly, the nominator did not do his research so much so that he couldn't just do one simple search on Google News. This is just another example that Afd is being handled by a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about or what the intercourse notability really means. Speedy Keep and block the nominator for his disruptive nomination. editorEهեইдအ😎 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Are you sure you've properly read and understood both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? References that meet the criteria for establishing notability are examined to a higher standard than references used to support a fact within the article. To meet the criteria for establishing notability, references must first of all be "intellectually independent" - this means that the reference must not extensively rely on information provided by the company (company announcements and press releases) or their officers (founder interview profiles, quotations, other interviews) and instead must provide some intellectually independent opinions or analysis. Forbes is usually a terrible source, most of their article on new companies are advertorials. This Forbes reference fails as it is not intellectually independent as it relies on quotations and information from company officers provided at a conference, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The first Coinbase reference is based on a company announcement and quotations from a company officer - fails for the same reasons. Also, CoinDesk is not an independent source since CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in Blockstack. The next CoinDesk reference fails because CoinDesk is not an independent source and also fails because it also relies on information provided by the company. The SiliconAngle reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it says nothing about the company - the topic of this article - and only discusses the technology. Finally this Wired reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, first, "a mere mention-in-passing" Are you kidding? My browster that the company's name was used seven times throughout the Wired article, so it's talked about a moderate amount. Second, you haven't given a rebuttal about the sources from the Google News search I linked to you.editorEهեইдအ😎 15:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Third, you said the SiliconAngle article "says nothing about the company." Well, then either you didn't read the article, or you're a total idiot: THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE COMPANY!!!!!!! There's an action the company is making presented in the headline, an entire section about what the company does for the Bitcoin community (How does a Blockstack node work?), there's an entire section about the availability of the program (Installing and using Blockstack for developers), and do I even need to explain to you why this argument are complete, complete bullshit (yes, I said bullshit, and it's your fault if you get offended by it). People like you are a reason AFD is ruining Wikipedia. Go make-love yourself editorEهեইдအ😎 15:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Using your numbering system: First. Yes, the company (the topic of this article) was a mere mention-in-passing. The other times the name is used references the "platform" - which is not the subject of this article. Second. I don't respond to links to Google search and no rebuttal is needed. See WP:GHITS. If you want to link to a specific reference, I'm happy to look at that. Third. Again, this says nothing about the company. Nor is the article about the company. It says a lot about the technology/platform but this article is about the company and no other topic. It is very clear to me that you haven't read the WP:NCORP guidelines and I advise you to pay particular attention to WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Finally, I've left a warning on your Talk page for your personal attacks. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the coverage here is better than most of the other companies in this space which are similiarly hype-based; the Fortune and Wired articles may be enough. It's absolutely not a disruptive nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having examined the references, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. They fail the test for intellectual independence and rely on company sources or they don't discuss the company. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 14 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. If more details of the source come i can review Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Bucket of Rocks)[edit]

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

poorly sourced Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains all of the sources about the artwork. RichardMcCoy (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the first source listed in References called "Warkel, H.G., Drouse, M.F., and Berry, S.L. The Herron Chronicle. Indianapolis: Herron School of Art, 2005" because it is in print. Can you tell me what it says? Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 1 source does not have a 404 error or something similar, and the only source that does only mentions the bucket of rocks once. If no more sources are available, then the article "# Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)" and reducing the content to stuff that is properly sourced will turn the article into a stub. Caleb The Wipper (talk) 16:02, 1 June 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) 01:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RichardMcCoy—is there anything more that you can add to this discussion? I'm not sure if you feel the article should be deleted or not. Sourcing seems to be sparse but perhaps you endorse the significance of the one source in print and not available on the Internet and which consequently I have not seen. I don't oppose the artwork illustrated at Untitled (Bucket of Rocks) but as you know reliable sourcing is necessary. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 17 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 19:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New School Center for Media[edit]

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

Only source is the school's website and the article lacks content and context. JDDJS (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a vocational school, I would apply WP:ORGCRIT instead of WP:NSCHOOL and right now there aren't any sources that would meet that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:22, 30 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) 01:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best reference I've found is this article with a largely-trivial mention. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable as per nom Heshiv (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.. I also say non that notable as per nom --Lauranos (talk) 12:50, 17 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! 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esi Ansah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 06:33, 14 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! 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Loft (Kent)[edit]

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

Original PROD reasoning was: "No sources located on Google, GBooks, GNews, Highbeam, or Newspapers.com. Notability is not inherited from people who have played at a venue."

The PROD was declined, and sources were added by the declining editor, however I don't believe they are sufficient to prove a claim of notability.

The first source is a business listing on Resident Advisor, giving contact info, event listings, etc. At the bottom it states "come check us out", indicating that it is not an independent review, but ad copy placed there by the club itself.

The second source is entirely about Pete Tong and has nothing to do with The Loft except for stating that he's playing there.

The last two articles are local sources, which in the absence of any sources with a wider audience do not contribute very much to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. A directory listing for a nn club; notability is not inherited from the notable acts and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 14 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! 23:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Aponte[edit]

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

Article created and maintained by a homonymous account. As an academic and assistant professor, subject does not pass WP:PROF, and as an actor WP:NACTOR is not met. Generally only passing mentions in sources, no significant coverage has been found, so WP:BASIC/WP:GNG is not met either. (Two related articles are being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Moreno de Aponte (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors of the World.) Sam Sailor 07:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been active for almost ten years. It should not be deleted. As an academic, the subject published a book and has written dozens of articles on the current economic and political situation in Venezuela. He has also been interviewed in various prominent media outlets, including the BBC. As an actor, he has worked extensively in the theater. There are countless of reviews on the internet on his theater work. He was also an actor in Scorsese's movie Hugo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:400:52F7:31B5:B5A6:97FC:1B40 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— 2601:644:400:52F7:31B5:B5A6:97FC:1B40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Disruptively attempting to circumvent this discussion by repeatedly removing the AfD template from the article will:

not work
not increase your chances of keeping the article.

Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @[Sam Sailor|Sailor] Thank you very much for your suggestion to delete this page. I am the subject featured in it and do not want to have this page. I guess this is all my fault because I created it. However, that was ten years ago. I have tried unsuccessfully to delete the content in the past but the system brings it back, so I have been updating it as everyone who googles me (including students, audience members, reviewers, future employers) can see it. So please delete it as soon as possible. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoaponte (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Subject isn't notable and we ought to prevent further problems by ensuring it can't be recreated. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't a BLP policy apply here? Since the subject does not want the article or hypothetically declares it isn't accurate, can it apply for speedy deletion? --Jamez42 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE could come into play, but if the SPA IP "keep" votes are discounted, and they should, as they are not policy based, then there is little doubt about the outcome. Sam Sailor 18:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept regardless of how the subject feels about it. There is enough notability.67.164.93.195 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — 67.164.93.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep immediately For example, he is noted in Hugo_(film) as an actor, people will search this actor's information or go tpo a media database or encyclopedia. If this is an encyclopedia of only very popular actors, it is ok to remove. Note: there is an entry in IMDB too because that is regarded as information (ref: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4263854/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t20). Here, we are truely destroying the knowledge of wikipedia. And, I think the article should be improved. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as an extra. Subject still seems to fail WP:NACTOR. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Shevonsilva: You somehow managed to duplicate the SPA IP "keep" vote in Special:Diff/845868732/845869762, I have removed it for you. Aponte is not noted for his small role in Hugo. May I suggest you start to source the article to WP:BASIC? You can list your findings here. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dear Wikipedia editors, first of all I would like to thank you for the time that you have spent in analyzing and commenting about this page as well as the one that I created about my late mother. I am very impressed by your commitment to the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation in general and this site in particular. As you know, I have requested for my page to be removed from the site. Although this is a page that I created myself, I did it over ten years ago. Things have changed and unfortunately online presence has become more of a burden for many of us. Without getting into too much detail about my work, I can confirm that I am indeed an actor and an academic. However, I do not consider myself notable in either field. I have been in many plays and films throughout the years (including Hugo, not as an extra by the way), but my acting work is more of a passion rather than a profession. In terms of my academic work, I am a university professor just like any other. My academic work could be interesting to other professors in the field but certainly not to the general public. Although I write articles in the press about Venezuela, my home country, this is more of an analyst function. I do not believe writing press articles and speaking to the media sometimes qualifies as notorious. Thus, I would appreciate if you could please support for this page to be removed. I saw that there have been some "keep" arguments in this page. I appreciate the support but I really would prefer for the page to be deleted. In terms of the page I created for my late mother, I feel that one should be kept. Unlike me, my mother was definitely notable in Venezuelan governments in the 60s and 70s. As per advice by one of you, I will collect more references on her work (hard copies) to improve the page. Thanks again and good luck to all of you in your editing and other career interests. Marcoaponte (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per OP. Also, the article subject summed it up very well why they're not notable by Wikipedia notability guidelines. byteflush _Talk 00:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not see that any legitimate reason for deletion has been presented. The article is reasonably well sourced, and the subject passes notability requirements. The desire of the subject to have the article deleted is not a generally accepted reason for deletion. If the subject has concerns about any particular part of the article, they can make note of that on the article's talk page, and editors can try to alleviate those concerns, but if the article is not defamatory, and the subject just doesn't want to have a Wikipedia article, that's not a policy-based reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The legitimate reason for deletion is per policy, WP:DEL8, as subject fails to meet the notability guidelines mentioned in the nomination. Feel free to post the sources you think qualify as independent, reliable and with significant coverage. I don't see them. Sam Sailor 22:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then we differ, because in my estimation he satisfies notability guidelines. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 20 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 19:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Monsters[edit]

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

PROD declined with the addition of a single source, but I don't think it's enough to confirm notability. The added source is a scant paragraph, essentially a TV listing rather than any kind of critical discussion of the topic. In my BEFORE checks, I wasn't able to find any additional non-listing sources that supported a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – another example of one of the WP:TVSHOW "exceptions". But this gets zero mentions in Variety, THR, Deadline and LA Times – which is basically impossible for any American TV program that is truly "notable" – and is exactly the kind of program for which TVSHOW's "presumed notability" would fail for. This merits a listing/mention at List of programs broadcast by National Geographic, nothing more. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One episode NatGeo doc out of an infinite number of one episode NatGeo docs. If these shows met TVSHOW, we'd be buried under a whole lot of paint-by-numbers Discovery, TLC and NatGeo works which are beyond unexceptional, which is why we don't catalog them. No need for a redirect either; WP:CHEAP might exist, but this wouldn't be clicked on very much. Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 13 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! 23:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cactoos[edit]

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

Non-notable Java-library. Probable self-promotion or undisclosed COI editing. A Google search found no in-depth coverage (but many false positives with other topics). GermanJoe (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a software library that makes no claims of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:07, 20 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! 23:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Žižić[edit]

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

I cannot find any notability or reference at all of this person, looking under the Latin and Cyrillic spellings. Every single Google search result comes from the Wikipedia entry. The only references come from family websites. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I did find a trace of him in this sr wiki article as lt. col in regards to a church bell. More notably he is mentioned in sr.wiki in relation to his son Veljko Žižić (who is notable) - srwiki entry. If he indeed commanded a brigade in a major battle, then he would be assumed notable per WP:SOLDIER (as this is a one-star billet + notable action) - however he is not mentioned in our Battle of Mojkovac article or in other language articles. I would expect that Veljko Žižić's father should be source able - which might be a way to see if this is a hoax or not - but my Serbo-Croatian is not up to par for this.Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- If the content is correct he was a "key commander". If so, he ought to be notable. However, I would have liked to know more of what he did in the 1910s and 1920s. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability (possibly even a hoax). Srnec (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 19 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. Enigma^msg 19:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puli Thevar[edit]

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

Hello. The page in question is about a person regarding whom there are no reliable reference sources available. The article itself is poorly constructed and does not follow the guidelines set for WP:BLP whatsoever. Vinyl Guy (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's a terrible article, but I had no trouble finding sources for something better. And I don't know why BLP is being brought up concerning someone who was active in the mid 1700s. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies regarding the BLP part. Novice user here. Meant that the standard guidelines set for a page were not satisfied (poorly sourced, lack of sufficient information, etc). Felt the article was not good at all and could not find better, authoritative sources. Given that, felt it was appropriate to ask for deletion. If you have found better sources, well and good. Vinyl Guy (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep--Ample amount of significant coverage in books.I fail to understand the relevance of BLP and this's a pathetic failure of attempting to source the article.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies regarding the BLP part. Novice user here. Meant that the standard guidelines set for a page were not satisfied (poorly sourced, lack of sufficient information, etc). Could not find authoritative reference sources for this person. Vinyl Guy (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Have added sources to the article. A cursory search on Google brings up plenty of book references, @Vinyl Guy: please have a look at WP:BEFORE. FITINDIA 17:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for sharing the link, shall go through the same. Made elementary errors in this case, won't happen again. Cheers. Vinyl Guy (talk) 07:52, 20 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. OK, looks like I got it wrong... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Singh (author)[edit]

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

Books appear to be self-published, sources are mainly review sites, no evidence that he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and suggest to withdraw. Multiple reliable sources (present in the article or otherwise) say that this is the author of several best-selling novels. There are reviews, interviews and articles in all Indian leading newspapers and magazines. Also his editor is Penguin, that doesn't sound like "self-publish" to me. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Err...A rare bad nom(: His books have been published by reputed publishers and he has been subject to a lot of coverage in media.Passes GNG comfortably.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:14, 14 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. The article has been significantly changed since it was nominated, and most participants here agreed that the changes improved the article enough to avoid deletion for the reasons provided. Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana–North Korea relations[edit]

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

PROD tag removed by author, so nominating now. Original PROD reasoning still stands, If there is no relation between the two countries, and no reliable sources discussing the relationship, why would there need to be a WP page for this topic? This is supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations. <RetroCraft314 /> 04:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there could be possible relationship between countries in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusacosta 3050 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Speculation, when unsourced and unfounded, is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. <RetroCraft314 /> 04:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There could also be a possible Wikipedia article about the relationship between the countries in the future. There are nearly 200 independent countries in the world, and the relationships between some pairs of them are notable, but not all of those relationships are notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is in name-only, with only one sentence posted. The article looks good now.TH1980 (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - The article is entirely made up by its author; it basically admits that this is a non-subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Keep ~~but without any prejudice against recreating the document as there appears to be a NK embassy in Ghana, and some sources may exist.~~ Always a notable topic. The AfD was proper, but has now been sufficiently cleaned up. SportingFlyer talk 05:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep and WP:SNOW close. The article is completely without sourcing and is valueless to the reader. A brief search shows no notable relations between the countries. If someone finds source material they can recreate the article. Nothing is lost by loosing the history of this page. New sources are enough for a reasonable NEXIST argument to be made. Jbh ^Talk 16:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 16:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There have been relations between the two from 1964,^[1] so it's not a "made up" thing or crystal ball. This might also mean there are GNG sources, but I'll have to check.
Keep: I've been adding reliably sourced material, which is found fairly easily. I'm confident at this point that GNG levels of sourcing exist. Pinging participants who commented before the article had any substance beyond CRYSTAL: @RetroCraft314, TH1980, TheGracefulSlick, and SportingFlyer: – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fits general notability requirement, reliable and verifiable coverage of relationship is cited, has historical relationship that could be further documented but seems evidently notable Asdklf; (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wertz, Daniel; Oh, JJ; Kim, Insung (August 2016). Issue Brief: DPRK Diplomatic Relations (PDF). The National Committee on North Korea. p. 3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 December 2016. Retrieved 19 January 2017.

Keep per WP:HEY by Finnusertop.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:11, 20 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! 23:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grady W. White[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, and entirely sourced to his obituary. This was a fun WP:BEFORE search as "Grady White" appears to be a famous boating company, with huge numbers of hits on newspapers.com (probably due to classifieds?). Winnowing down my before search (adding initials and places and "mayor") brought up only routine coverage of him as a mayor. SportingFlyer talk 04:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being mayor of Melbourne, Florida is not a default sign of notability, and the sources are just not strong enough if that is not the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Melbourne FL is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 20 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! 23:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onset Financial[edit]

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

Subject does not meet general notability requirements and its only coverage is local. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would cite this companies local competition as reason to show it's notability Tetra Financial Group, Onset is larger than this company. This article is written in the same manner and the company covers the same area (United States) and is also located in Utah. If you read through the sources, the MonitorDaily articles are from across the country, which would make the coverage national not local. Since the company is based in Utah, it reasonable to assume that the bulk of the information about the company would be relating to where it is from. BMcElreath (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is little that meets the notability guidelines. Most of the coverage is simple puffery and rehashed press releases. For example: Onset Press release versus Monitor online. To me, if a source is just a conduit for the company ~~fees~~ feed, I would suggest that it is not independent, which also undermines the notability claim.

I could argue the the example of the other company you cite is also non-notable but slipped through the cracks. Besides Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a rationale to overcome a lack of notability on the primary subject.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 16:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned Sources can easily be removed. As this is my first Wikipedia article I was simply using the Tetra Financial Group article as reference since it had been published already, and they used similar articles as references. If those references are removed, what would be your argument for deletion? Below I have listed how the other sources meet requirements for notability on Wikipedia. BMcElreath (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should nominate Tetra Financial Group for deletion using the similar rationale used here. I think removing questionable references adds nothing to the article to support a claim of notability. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 16:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading more about notability at Wikipedia:Notability I have a few more arguments against deletion. While the Deseret News is a local source (Reference 12), it meets "Reliable", "Independent of the subject", "Sources", and "Presumed" requirements of notability. I would also argue that this source falls under "Significant coverage" as even though it is not the main topic of discussion it is more than a trivial mention since there were far more companies excluded from this this than are on it. The guidelines for Notability state, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The Desert News article also references data from Glassdoor, a nationally recognized brand, in their results. Utah Business Magazine (Reference 13) is also a reputable local publication. Notability guidelines do not exclude local coverage nor do they require national or global coverage. Inc. (magazine) is a nationally recognized publication that meets Notability for the same previous arguments. Onset Financial is also the subject of dozens of articles in ELFA (Reference 2), the national recognized industry organization for equipment finance and leasing, and in MonitorDaily, which is known across the equipment lease and finance industry as a reputable and independent publication for industry news (References 2-10). EY Ernst & Young (Reference 17) is a globally recognized brand that recognized Onset Financial and their CEO's success at a regional level. With the information listed above and referencing the guidelines for Notability requirements I see no reason that the Onset Financial page should be deleted as it meets community guidelines and requirements. BMcElreath (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that ELFA is another source of recycled press releases Company press release versus ELFA therefore would likely fail as an independent source. Inc. certainly is a national outlet but just being on a list does not confer any notability nor does being the 63rd best place to work in Utah according to Glassdoor. Those are user generated reviews, not independent reliable sources. This would akin to naming a restaurant as notable because it got good Yelp ratings. In neither case is the company the subject of the coverage. At this point there is not a single item that comes from an independent source where this company is the subject of the coverage.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 16:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines from Wikipedia:Notability specifically state that the subject of the article "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" of a source for it to be notable. Even if we were to discount all of the sources you mentioned, there is still Utah Business Magazine which features Onset Financial as one of the fastest growing companies in Utah. I would argue that is both a reliable source and is "significant coverage" as it is more than a trivial mention. The example of a trivial mention for guidelines: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." This article uses company revenues, a quantifiable figure, to determine these rankings. Because it's based of numbers, I would argue that it is not simply being on a list, but it's proving notability by showing the growth of the company in comparison to others. Even if that is the only source listed that meets notability guidelines, notability guidelines do not have a minimum number of sources to determine notability. BMcElreath (talk) 17:21, 13 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 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bencini[edit]

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

Notable only for being a mayor. There's the requisite local mentions of him performing his mayoral duties in the press, but he's not otherwise notable, and fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 01:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete High Point is not tiny, but as the article presents him, he's just another mayor with nothing that stands out. Mangoe (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 13 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 18:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Vaden[edit]

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

Poorly referenced possible WP:BLP primarily notable as a failed candidate for congress. He fails WP:NPOL as his only claim to notability is mayor of a small town and there's not enough WP:GNG to earn him an article. SportingFlyer talk 01:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as typical mayor who aspired to a somewhat higher office and didn't make it. Other than that, no real claim of notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably could add some election results but why bother: it is routine. Failed candidates to not get a pass according to NPOL, his previous position is not inherently notable, and WP:GNG is not met.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:24, 13 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. Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Cuso[edit]

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

No in-depth third-party coverage from reliable sources, just references to a few shows that the subject collaborated on. Created by group of now-blocked single-purpose accounts. Prod tag was disputed by anon editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet general notability or notability for creative professionals. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Provided better sourcing can be added by neutral users.TH1980 (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I edited the article to make it closer to NPOV, but of the opinion that a young fashion designer doing the job of a fashion designer does not make that person notable (yet). If it is kept, all the stuff about TV and film appearances should be cut. References are weak. For example, ref #1, relevant content is one sketch from NC, no text. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per David notMD, the references are weak enough to merit deletion; and per PohranicniStraze, the subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines for creative professionals. Might become famous later on, but we can always recreate the page if warranted. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 13:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:50, 13 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] ttps://www.marathimovieworld.com/news/pakda-pakdi-music-launch.php

[2] ttps://www.marathimovieworld.com/news/pakda-pakdi-music-launch.php

[3] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/punes-landmark-cinema-hall-moves-high-court/articleshow/14955174.cms

[4] Wertz, Daniel; Oh, JJ; Kim, Insung (August 2016). Issue Brief: DPRK Diplomatic Relations (PDF). The National Committee on North Korea. p. 3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 December 2016. Retrieved 19 January 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]