Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 June	22 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Banana[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable term: I have been unable to find any reliable or academic sources that use this "Green Banana" term in the context of megalopolises, only forums at best. There also doesn't seem to be an indication that the term is widely used either, unlike Blue Banana (indeed, the article itself admits that the term is "lesser known"), Considering green bananas (as in the fruit) exist, this could possibly work as a redirect to a banana-related article, though considering the current article text, a delete-redirect might be a better option here.

Note: the article was previously deleted per a deletion discussion, but based on a mirror on Deletedwiki, this article is a new version and not a recreation of the previous version; as such, G4 does not apply here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to previous AfD commenters @El cid, el campeador, Lithopsian, Ma'az, LaundryPizza03, Bondegezou, Power~enwiki, MB, and Staszek Lem: Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete or move to draft; if the re-creator hasn't added any references it's not worth anyone's time to re-litigate this. Blue Banana is stupid but seems to have enough references, Golden Banana probably doesn't but I can't prove it. This is just a non-notable neologism, like the "Yellow Banana" (Paris-Warsaw) or the "Red Octopus" (I don't even know where). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G4: Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion. No sources, none of the concerns are addressed, still dubious potential hoax. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Double Speedy Delete (see my PPS) as a hopelessly nonnotable neologism (sources are extremely scarse and nondefinitive). Assuming good faith, I may guess that the article was recreated due to prominent red green banana in "Megalopolis" the previous deleter failed to remove. I removed it], together tith the surrounding unreferenced stuff (tagged since 2017). So I guess this time the article will be gone for good, I hope. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS Despite allegedly covering a big chunk of Poland, there is no Polish equivalent, "Zielony banan", in use. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PPS A wasted a bit of by curiosity charge and IMO it looks like we have a mild case of "citogenesis" here: green banana was fed to Megalopolis in April 2013 by an anon IP. And it appears all references in the outer world, including this supposedly reliable one are based on various versions of Wikipedia "Megalopolis" article. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Just like that last time; nothing has changed. MB 04:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and as before. Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course, and with haste; otherwise, "Keep" as a useful example of how articles should NOT be created in Wikipedia. As it stands, it has no sources, contains only personal opinion, reads like a hurried essay, offers a personal viewpoint, refers to a non-notable subject, and even contains a nonsensical map. Its creator simply could not care less. -The Gnome (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before. The discussion confirmed it did not meet notability requirements, and new content has done nothing to allay or disprove those concerns and arguments. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:30, 27 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey hardcore[edit]

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

nomination this as per WP:OR. Yes there are hardcore punk bands in New Jersey, but I not seeing any sources that cover New Jersey hardcore as a separate movement from punk elsewhere. The article uses acronymfinder.com as a source. The page arbitrarily classifies bands into time periods (called waves) that are not backup-ed by any reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:- previous verision of the article under the title List of New Jersey hardcore bands was also deleted per this discussion

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without relevant reliable sources, this one is pure original research. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. The article does not appear to use any reliable sources. Likely does not meet GNG either given the lack of sources. Tillerh11 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term "New Jersey hardcore" has actually been used by various bands in that scene to describe themselves; here is one example: [1], and others can be found online. However this is still an attempt at self-categorization in which similar bands from the same area try to promote their scene. The concept is insignificant unless it is noticed by reliable media sources in the outside world, as has happened for scenes like West Coast hip hop or Swedish death metal etc. Not so for these Jersey fellas. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to hardcore punk. There is no indication of notability, just that there are hardcore bands from New Jersey. Yawn. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to redirect, there is no discussion of the topic there either and it doesn't seem to be a widely used term.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:05, 25 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhett Baker[edit]

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

WP:BLP of the mayor of a town with a population of less than one thousand people. As always, every mayor of everywhere does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as a mayor -- to qualify as notable, a mayor has to have enough reliable source coverage about him in real media to enable us to write something genuinely substantive about him and his political career. But three of the four references here are primary sources that do absolutely nothing to establish a person's notability at all -- a press release from his alma mater, the staff directory of his own employer and the statewide database of all teacher salaries in Pennsylvania -- and the fourth is just a raw table of election results. These are not the kind of sources it takes to make a smalltown mayor notable just for being a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails general notability and notability for politicians. Google search is not turning up reliable sources on him either. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look like he's done anything really notable and most of the sources do not help establish notability. I usually vote Keep for mayors but not when it is veritably a small town. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not deserve to be notable WP:GNG. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. 344917661X (talk) 00:20, 24 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 and redirect to Leonard Nimoy. Delete, but a redirect seems unexceptional. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Zober[edit]

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

Actress whose main claim to fame is being Leonard Nimoy's first wife. Her acting career did not live long and prosper. Fails WP:INHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG on the basis of the references cited.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the "significant coverage" GNG requires? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR. Even IMDb, which is generally not acceptable by Wikipedia as a reliable source, cannot string together any kind of notable appearances in films, TV, or the theater. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any salvageable content to Nimoy's article. Subject does not meet any notability other than being the spouse of a notable person. There is no acting career, as mentioned above, imdb lists her as a wardrobe assistant. References seem to be more of a mentioning than an about, being more about her husband than her. Auto/Biographical memoirs would by nature mention parents, and would not be considered independent of the subject.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:04, 25 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 draftified by author. ansh 666 06:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Carlo Villaruel[edit]

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

Subject is a journalist but the citations only point to what he wrote, not about him. There's no credible claim of significance and the subject fails WP:BLP1E, as well as WP:GNG. The article was de-PROD'd by Rockmond2572 simply insisting that the subject exists. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument for deletion or redirection. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Konakovo Power Station[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, obviously notable. I don't know why anyone would think that a large power station would not be notable, but a proper WP:BEFORE would soon have set you straight. The effect of warm water from the station on the lake ecology has been extensively studied;
- Boitsov, M.P. (1971), "The effect of warm water discharged by the Konakovo Power Station on the distribution and growth of youn fishes of Ivan'kovo Resorvoir", Journal of Ichthyology, vol. 11, iss. 2, pp. 257-262.
- The above is a translation from the original Russian in Voprosy ikhtiologii, vol. 11, pp. 325-331.
- Boitsov, M.P. (1974), "The morphology of underyearling fishes in the zone affected by warm waters discharged from the Konakovo Power Station", Journal of Ichthyology, vol. 14, iss. 6, pp. 904-910.
- The above is a translation from the original Russian in Voprosy ikhtiologii, vol. 14, pp. 1046-1054.
- T. Langford, Ecological Effects of Thermal Discharges, briefly discusses Konakovo and lists at least two more papers [Sappo (1975), Sappo (1976)] in the biliography which are explicitly about warm water from Konakovo.
- Korgina, Y.M.; Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D (1979), "Effect of heated water from the Konakovo power station on chironomid larvae in Ivan'kovo reservoir", Hydrobiological Journal, vol. 15, iss. 2

Other sources more concerned with the engineering and construction of the plant include,

An article in The Daily Review, vol. 15, p. 71 has an article that includes this snippet; "Mikhail Poliakov, Hero of Socialist Labour, leader of the erectors' team, is installing the fifth million kilowatt of capacities at the Konakovo power station, or four times in excess of pre -revolutionary Russia's total power output." This is clearly a longer article, but that's all I could get in snippet view.
Thermal Engineering, vol. 23 has some discussion of the station at page 18 (sorry, couldn't get the name of the article) and the article at page 32, "Feedwater and condensate of supercritical thermal power station generating units using ammonia and hydrazine" might be largely about Konakovo Power Station judging by the snippet.
Problems in the Design and Operation of Thermal Power Stations discusses Konakovo Power Station.

These are only the sources that come up in the English language. I'm pretty sure that there must be much more in Russian language sources if a Russian speaker would care to look for us. SpinningSpark 23:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For most power stations, references can be expected to exist. Digging may be required, especially for older ones and those in non-English-speaking countries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the research done by Spinningspark. They have shown multiple RS about the construction and impact of the power plant and there is no doubt more available in the Russian language. All sufficient to confer notability per WP:GNG and provide the basis for an article. Hence, keep. --Mark viking (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfordjohn56 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis of the BEFORE search conducted by SpinningSpark, above, I'm convinced this passes the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:45, 26 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhoods of Ciudad del Este[edit]

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

This article is completely unsourced and a google search doesn't bring up any list of these neighbourhoods. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN. All entries are redlinks. Ajf773 (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a look in es:Categoría:Ciudad del Este to see if we could translate some stubs – there's nada. A list article with only redlinked titles is not a navigational help for the reader. Sam Sailor 18:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails LISTN and GEO requirements. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, probably to Ciudad del Este, if not "Keep and develop". Or redirect specifically to a new section in that city article. This would conform to wp:ATD; we are obligated to look for decent alternatives to deletion. Sure the current list doesn't look great, it should probably have been blacklinks with some description about each neighborhood, and with a map of the neighborhoods, instead of its current bare list of redlinks appearance. But Ciudad del Este is apparently the second largest city in Paraguay and has population around 300,000. It has a long history and its neighborhoods can be significant in explaining/describing the city. It could be reasonable to list the neighborhoods in a section in the city article. It could be reasonable to restore the list-article eventually when Wikipedia gets around to developing more geo coverage in S. America in general, or when someone from Paraguay gets around to developing this specific topic. Note there are zillions of members of Category:Lists of neighbourhoods. It is reasonable to save the edit history, and specifically its content being a list of neighborhood names, in edit history at the redirect. No reason to punish whoever started this, just a little bit ahead of the curve. --Doncram (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the discussion so far mentions searching on lists of neighborhoods, and mentions looking for ES stubs on neighborhoods, but I don't think there is any assertion above about having searched for coverage about each of the specific neighborhoods mentioned. Many or all of them could easily be "list-item notable" for inclusion in a restored list-article eventually, with definition of their boundaries and description of why each one is important, etc. I am reminded that for San Juan, Puerto Rico, whose Districts section, was questioned somehow, or for whom separate district articles were disputed, that I think it is important to define the barrios as places. In part to allow for reasonable treatment of articles about bridges and roads between them, some of which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. For San Juan, a city of 400,000, there are 60 historic bridges or other sites which are covered in Wikipedia. Eventually there should be equivalent coverage of modern arenas, other landmarks, and historic sites, and having the barrios defined is simply necessary, like having vocabulary, to describe them. --Doncram (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google maps shows defined boundaries for numerous neighborhoods including:
- "Barrio Centro, Ciudad del Este, Paraguay"
- "Barrio Boqueron, Ciudad del Este, Paraguay"
- "Barrio Boqueron, Ciudad del Este, Paraguay"
- "Area 1, Ciudad del Este, Paraguay"
- "Area 8, Ciudad del Este, Paraguay"

and so on, corresponding to the listed. These must therefore be official districts/communities defined by the city. Try searching Google about Barrio Boqueron, say, and it is apparently a term used in many real estate listings. On basis that Wikipedia is a gazetteer about places, and these are well-defined places/districts/communities, I think this list-article is actually best kept and developed. wp:NGEO. Having the list-article is helpful in heading off stub articles being created for each of the separate places separately, too. Without decent development of the list-article yet, redirect for now is not great but is better than outright deletion. --Doncram (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, each of the current redlinks could be created as redirects to the list-article, then the list-article items changed to simple blacklinks. Then there are no unsightly redlinks.

And, umm, try searching on "departamentos en ciudad del este" or "barrios en ciudad del este". The deletion nominator was only trying to search in English, maybe? --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Inightfox (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote by blocked sock puppet. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 28 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. So Why 13:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Diego D'Andrea[edit]

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

Apparently completely non-notable lawyer with a non-notable position in a fairly unimportant EU institution in China. I may be wrong to mention this here, but this has all the signs of undisclosed paid editing; Sunshine-Moonlight, were you paid to create this page?. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill lawyer and businessman. Subject fails WP:GNG, for while they are named in several sources, these sources by and large do not concern D'Andrea; rather, they focus on entities that D'Andrea is affiliated with, which is an issue given that subjects do not inherit notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) from other, more notable topics. Thus these mentions should not be construed as conferring undue notability on D'Andrea, and I would wager they constitute mentions in passing or trivial mentions. It should also be noted that Wikipedia does not hold businessmen or lawyers to be innately notable, and that chambers of commerce (several of which D'Andrea is a member of) often name members based on financial contributions. Finally, nothing indicates why the subject is individually notable when compared to other corporate lawyers or why anything about D'Andrea has any longterm encyclopedic notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:41, 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument for deletion or redirection. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal Power Plant 27[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just a generic power plant, not notable for any events. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In-depth references from reliable sources about power plants almost always exist, but may require some digging. Take a look at this Google News search for the power plant's Russian name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it (I do understand Russian language perfectly), including Googling further, and I don't think that very trivial mentions (in sources with questionalble reliability) about very minor accident (like a transformator fire) or stuff like "in 2007–2015 on six stations (ТЭЦ-12, ТЭЦ-16, ТЭЦ-20, ТЭЦ-21, ТЭЦ-26 и ТЭЦ-27) the seven new block-units were introduced" still make this station "notable"... And every secondary source which provides brief historical data about this station basically copies info from primary self-published source, which is this one, which also has highly questionable claims (for example claims about efficiency). But that's just my opinion after researching this for some time... Also, I don't know why this reference was just added today, but it has absolitely NOTHING to do with the station near Moscow since it only talks about different station near certain city in Crimea. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you Eastmain for providing the Russian name. That enabled me to search for scholarly papers. Three immediately came up with the subject name in the title;

МОЛЧАНОВ К.А., СТРАШНЫХ В.П., ЖЕЖЕРЯ Д.А., МАНЕВСКАЯ OA (2008), ПОЛНОМАСШТАБНЫЙ ТРЕНАЖЕР ДЛЯ ОБУЧЕНИЯ ОПЕРАТИВНОГО ПЕРСОНАЛА ЭНЕРГОБЛОКА ПГУ-450 ТЭЦ-27 ОАО 'МОСЭНЕРГО'" ("A full-scale simulator for training operational personnel of the PGU-450 power unit of CHPP-27 of Mosenergo"), Heat-Power Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 69-76.
КОПСОВ А.Я et al. (1999), "ОПЫТ РАЗРАБОТКИ И ВНЕДРЕНИЯ ПОЛНОМАСШТАБНОЙ АСУ ТП ЭНЕРГОБЛОКА ПГУ-450Т НА ТЭЦ-27 ОАО 'МОСЭНЕРГО'" ("Experience in developing and implementing a full-scale automated process control system for the PGU-450T power unit at CHPP-27 of Mosenergo"), Electrical Stations, vol. 7, pp. 44-49.
БАРСКИЙ Л.А., ЗАЙДЕНБЕРГ Л.М., ГЕЛЬФАНД А.М., ГОВОРКО В.П., ТАРАСОВ Д.В (1999), "Автоматизированная система управления цехом химической водоподготовки ТЭЦ-27 Мосэнерго" ("Automated control system for the chemical water treatment shop of Mosenergo TPP-27"), Heat-Power Engineering, vol. 7, pp. 44-49.

There are many more results on gscholar that have the installation name somewhere in the text. Some might be passing mentions, but this is clearly notable. SpinningSpark 15:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfordjohn56 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This in depth coverage by RIA Novosti is enough for WP:GNG. In addition, sources mentioned by Spinningspark make it notable. Beagel (talk) 19:30, 24 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. Yes, it's a mess, but AfD is (inevitably) not for cleanup. There is consensus that it's a notable topic, and its title and content are ... content issues. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-communist mass killings[edit]

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

The article is a SYNTH based OR COATRACK. The subject of the article, a purported common cause to the killing of communists across multiple societies, does not exist in any scholarly literature. The only literature I know of, from wide reading over 15 years, is the citation added recently: a "unique" claim in psychosexual history based off a single country study. This does not make a scholarly discourse regarding a theoretical, structural or process across multiple societies. The response to Courtois "Blackbook" was to reject the domain of large scale causes. And if there isn't a discourse on a common cause, then all we have is a list produced by wikipedian editors as an original synthesis of a coatrack Fifelfoo (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, many communists were killed in a number of countries. The person who killed the largest number of communists was probably Joseph Stalin, maybe Mao, maybe Hitler. However, we need at least a couple of good books which covers this topic as a coherent subject. I do not see them. Google books search returns this result (i.e. the killings by communist governments and a single anticommunist killing in Indonesia). Yes, this subject only exists in connection to mass killings by the communists. Only this latter subject (mass killings by the communists) has indeed every right to exist - based on the books immediately retrieved by the google search. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As WP:OR in esse. Not even a close call. Collect (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a major topic that absolutely does exist in scholarly literature on anti-communism. Of course the sources don't necessarily use the phrase "anti-communist mass killings" in talking about it, so doing a simple search for that phrase isn't going to be very helpful in finding relevant information. But there are many sources that talk about the general phenomenon of anti-communist forces killing real or suspected communists across multiple countries - which is the topic of the article. Probably the best source on this subject right now is the book Revolutionaries for the Right: Anticommunist Internationalism and Paramilitary Warfare in the Cold War. It focuses precisely on anti-communist violence and mass killings across multiple countries over an extended period of time.

It's also easy to find chapters or sections dealing with anti-communist mass killings within books and articles that talk about international anti-communism more broadly. Here are just a few examples of sources that dedicate some significant space to this topic. The key to finding them is to use a variety of search terms related to anti-communism and large-scale killings, not merely the phrase "anti-communist mass killings".

Revolutionaries for the Right: Anticommunist Internationalism and Paramilitary Warfare in the Cold War

Death Squads (journal article)

When States Kill (book)

State Violence in East Asia (talks about both communist and anti-communist mass killings, labeling them as such)

The Condor Years: How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terror to Three Continents

Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America

Argentina, the U.S., and the Anti-Communist Crusade in Central America, 1977–1984

Spider Web: The Birth of American Anticommunism

A Century of Revolution: Insurgent and Counterinsurgent Violence during Latin America’s Long Cold War

International Anticommunism before the Cold War: Success and Failure in the Building of a Transnational Right (in "New Perspectives on the Transnational Right")

School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas

Las guerrillas blancas: anticomunismo transnacional e imaginarios de derechas en Argentina y México, 1954–1972

Just because there aren't any books out there with the phrase "anti-communist mass killings" in the title, that doesn't mean there are no books or articles that talk about the topic of mass killings carried out by anti-communists across multiple countries. There are.

The article is not inherently a Synthesis or a Coatrack. The topic exists in reliable sources. Of course, the article as it stands right now may be a Coatrack - I can see it has very serious problems - but that just means it should be improved.

Finally, I don't understand the argument that the article should be deleted because there are no sources talking about "a purported common cause to the killing of communists across multiple societies". The name of the article is anti-communist mass killings, not causes of anti-communist mass killings. And there are sources talking about such killings as an international phenomenon. What does it matter if the sources adequately address the causes or not? If there are reliable sources talking about multiple anti-communist mass killings across multiple countries, then the topic exists in scholarship. It doesn't matter precisely what the sources say about it, as long as they cover the topic. -- Damoclus (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these books actually covers the general subject of anti-communist repressions in all countries. Also, you made only 34 edits in the project and came back after a year of inactivity, specifically to vote here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They do cover the general subject of anti-communist repressions in multiple countries, including most of the ones currently mentioned in the article. I'm not sure what would qualify as all countries. Obviously anti-communist repressions didn't happen in every country. And of course we can disagree about which countries and which repressions fall under this topic (which killings are "mass" killings, for example). Maybe some need to be removed from the article, and others need to be added. The article certainly needs to be improved to follow the sources more closely. But the fact that sources don't necessarily talk about all possible examples doesn't mean the topic doesn't exist. -- Damoclus (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, My very best wishes, how the number of previous edits by a contributor or their sudden reappearance can have any bearing on an AfD. Perhaps there's a policy of which I'm not aware. Could you, please, elaborate? -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (conditionally), although I am not too happy about that article, when I looked at some sources presented above, I have to concede the topic does exist. Although one may argue that Stalin, probably, killed more communists than everybody else (except Hitler), that is hardly a relevant argument. If we compare this article with its twin (MKuCR), this article's topic is crystal clear: "What this article is telling about?" About killings of communists by anti-communists. "Why communists were being killed?" Because they were communists. "Who were perpetrators?" The people who declared their anti-communism. In other words, all these events followed more or less uniform pattern, were motivated by the same factor, and both perpetrators and victims were clearly defined. In this article: Helen Fein. Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823 Stable URL: [2]. The author clearly describes Indonesian genocide as an instance of an broader phenomenon, an ideologically motivated anti-communist genocide.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Upon meditation, I came to conclusion that, if we will use a really strict NOR standards, this article may be considered a synthesis. However, these standards should be applied globally, which means "Mass killings under communist regimes" article should be deleted too, because only few books cover the topic. These books are Red Holocaust, Black Book of Communism and one chapter in the Valentino's "Final solution". However, we already have separate articles for the first two books, so, if strict NOR standard will be applied to this article, MKuCR artcile should go too (and, by the way, no loss of content will occur, because each separate subject discussed in that article already has its own article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup — the topic easily meets WP:GNG, the issues of how to present a complex topic in the article within policy guidelines should be discussed on the article's talk page.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Yes, there are sources that treat this as a topic. Yes, AfD is not for cleanup. But this article is godawful: it's a morass of SYNTH and OR, and in my opinion, the best course is to blow it up and start over. As an aside; this is not the counterpart to Mass killings under Communist regimes. That documents government killings by a certain (possibly artificial) category of government; this documents targeted killings of members of a certain ideology. The counterpart to this article would be "Mass killings of anti-communists" (yes, I know that's confusing). Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename -- This is certainly not a pleasant subject, but that does not mean that we should not have an article. We have "main articles" on a number of these, which means that the entries here should be kept modest in length (as most are). However, I would suggest Mass Killings of Communists as the title. The circumstances differ: some were clearly anti-insurgency operations; others may have been like genocides, though they cannot be classified as genocide, since the criterion was political belief, not ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: The problem with that title is that the victims of such killings weren't all communists. Plenty of them were socialists, suspected communists, bystanders, witnesses, suspected sympathizers, etc. Vanamonde (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point accepted, but I suspect there ought to be a title along those lines that would deal with your point: perhaps Mass Killings of Communists and suspects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (conditionally) per Paul Siebert.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. This is dangerous ground. We have to ignore politics (for some people, such an article, might look like support for communism!) and focus on policy and the encyclopaedic objective.

Clearly, as there have been mass killings by communists against their opponents of whatever persuasion, even apolitical people, there have also been mass killings of communists and sympathizers by anticommunists. This is all trivially, widely, and in-depth presented in historical texts of impeccable credentials. The cases provided above by Damoclus, in the form of already extant Wikipedis articles, are only indicative of the historical references. Propaganda by all sides will always use, of course, an opposite side's killings; but the decision here should not be taken under some kind of fear we'd be "engaging in propaganda." Wikipedia rejects censorship and is unafraid of controversies. -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : Vanamonde raises an interesting point: When those killed are not all communists, how can we name the killings as "anticommunist"? Well, the same sources that describe such events make quite clear that the incentive behind the killings was the violent repression and elimination of communists, plus anyone deemed to be a "fellow traveler," a "sympathizer," an "ally," etc. In ideological wars, we know that personal differences were also sometimes settled under the guise of ideology. Again, example abound. This, however, does not change the fact the war was based on and conducted on the basis of ideology. The obvious, common title, then, is "communist" and "anticommunist" this or that. -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. The text needs improvement. This by itself is not a reason for deletion, however. -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a good collection of information about Anti-communist purges, and I don't see any reason to delete either this or the Mass killings under Communist regimes article. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By definition, a minority of scholars discussing these events in relation to one another is all that is required for the topic to exist. Also, what Seraphim System said.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and verifiable subject, even if the article as it stands today isn't great – but AfD is not cleanup, as mentioned above. /Julle (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable article. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:18, 27 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) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of pornographic film studios[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT I propose to exclude this article. It's confusing, to unnecessarily separate hetero and homosessual studios, part separated by country another not. In addition to a not referencied description about pornographic studio. It could be corrected, but I prefer to exclude the redirects, associations and history of the page and recreate other more clear. Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, fails GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Easier to improve an article than to destroy it and recreate it. Or just make something totally new and copy it over. No reason to delete. Valid list article, aids in navigation, all entries are blue links. Dream Focus 23:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proposer makes no valid policy-based rationale for deletion. He gives a rationale for improvement, but AfD is not cleanup. Go ahead and rewrite the article, there is no pressing need for deletion of the history before doing that. As for Davey2010's claim that this does not meet GNG, are we seriously to believe that "pornographic film studios" has never been "discussed as a group or set" (the requirement for lists in WP:N) in reliable sources? That seems highly unlikely. SpinningSpark 15:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup; cleanup is needed but this is a very reasonable list topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's not a perfect article by any means, but it fits perfectly well with anything on Wikipedia's Lists of companies. PvOberstein (talk)
Strong Keep, since it's simply a list of companies active in a certain field. The field itself is notable. (If anyone thinks otherwise I have a bridge they can buy.) And so is each one of the companies listed: Not a red link in sight. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 25 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Movies Worth Watching[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a television "series" which aired on a single defunct channel, and was really just the block title for movies. Something like this could certainly qualify for an article if reliable source coverage could be shown to analyze the history and cultural context of the programming block as a thing — see e.g. Saturday Night at the Movies, where there's context and history galore — but it doesn't get an automatic free pass over WP:TVSHOW just for existing, if we can't write or source any real substance about it beyond the mere fact that it existed. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A blog page at the associated online distance learning Athabasca University says the series was hosted by someone named Jacques Benoit, but found zilch coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:47, 28 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. Merge can always be discussed separately. So Why 13:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hagy Belzberg[edit]

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

Architect fails WP:BIO. Dewritech (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fund at least three credible sources for the personality who seems to faintly pass WP:ARTIST for being in a hall of fame, winning multiple awards, and being felicitated by the LA holocaust museum. Definitely think he is notable. (This is my first AfD discussion participation.) Cheers! Sir Tragedy (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has won significant awards in the field, was the architect for the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust, and is the founder of Belzberg Architects. That's enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and tag page for improvement. Stuff like Architectural Review magazine, Interview: Hagy Belzberg]. Plus there's an elegant book on his work (albeit in Italian) that's widely owned by major libraries with architecture collections. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I hadn't noticed (because I simply took the name and searched it,) is that there does not seem to be a border between the demonstrably notable Hagy Belzberg and Belzberg Architects, which he founded and runs. Therefore suggest Redirect and merge Hagy Belzberg to Belzberg Architects.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaryan Adhikari[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, A couple of major roles in minor films, which themselves don't seem to have received much coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 7 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)} 17:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject clearly failing WP:NACTOR and WP:NDIRECTOR. Charming presentation, though. -The Gnome (talk) 17:15, 25 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. SKCRIT#1 - withdrawn with no delete votes. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EveryOne Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No RS currently in article. A BEFORE search for "EveryOne Group" on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds no RS. No physical address on organization's official page, seemingly suggesting this is just a website that uses superlative phrases to describe its activity, or lack thereof. Chetsford (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Withdraw AfD as nominator. Since the original nomination, Nikoo.Amini has improved the article with references that weren't revealed during my initial BEFORE search and I'm now of the opinion it probably passes our GNG. Chetsford (talk) 06:13, 22 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. So Why 13:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When Men Get Pregnant[edit]

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

Stub article that has remained unsourced since 2009. The Vietnamese language version is also unsourced. Fails WP:NFILM and GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obscure shows with no sources on them whatsoever should not be on wikipedia, delete the one on the Vietnamese Wikipedia as well. 344917661X (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say let's invade them. And save it by destroying it. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject entirely missing any kind of verifiable prooof of notability, even on the fringes. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 25 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. So Why 13:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Jayraj[edit]

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

Non-notable actress with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and there is no evidence she played a major role in any TV shows listed in the article except Naam Iruvar Namakku Iruvar. Fails WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has prominent roles in two television series and so passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget that our motto is 'verifiability, not truth', as defined in our core policy, WP:V so you need to provide reliable sources for validation of the information and proof of the notability. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 02:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Consensus has always been that despite the literary definition of multiple, we seldom consider two-show-wonder(s) to be any notable.It needs to be quite-a-many or otherwise he/she has to secure non-trivial significant coverage in multiple sources, for his/her works.In this case, there is zero non-trivial coverage.∯WBG^converse 12:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 28 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. So Why 13:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Tischman[edit]

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

All of the extant articles used for references here are problematic: there are interviews with the subject (see WP:IV) that are not about the subject but rather his work. It seems his work is notable. But the interviews tell us nothing about the author other than that he wrote some comics. The first thing that shows up in a Google search is this very Wikipedia article, followed by interviews about his work and then his publications. Substantive discussion about the subject in reliable independent sources? Am not seeing it. A loose noose (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He's close to meeting the third criteria of WP:AUTHOR, but he's not there yet. As an aside, the ranking of the Wikipedia article in a Google search is immaterial because they're often the top result regardless of the subject. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Author of the page here. I won't vote, but here's why I think he meets AUTHOR #3. Has he created a significant collective body of work? Well, here's what he's written. I'm not going to count all those but it looks like a couple hundred issues over 15 years. Arguably significant. Has his work been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? I'd say so - looks like his work has been covered by Publisher's Weekly, Comic Book Resources, Time, Newsarama, and Broken Frontier. Good enough for me. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The author seems to be notable. His work make him notable.NANExcella (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cerebellum - 200 comics in 15 years averages out to 1.1 per month. For a writer of monthly comics, that's very underwhelming. None of his work seems to have garnered much acclaim. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regarding WP:NAUTHOR #3, a couple of hundred strikes me as "multiple". Thincat (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thincat:, please note that's a couple hundred issues of monthly comics. Per #3, installments of periodicals shouldn't typically counted separately. A significant portion of his work has also been on pre-established franchises that he did not co-create. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:26, 28 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. So Why 13:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Voice[edit]

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

I'm not finding any nontrivial coverage of this in reliable sources. [3] and [4] list alternative programs, [5] is a changelog (also a forum), [6] is a forum, [7] is also a forum (where someone is asking if anyone still uses this, and received no replies, incidentally enough), and neither the Speex references nor the VSNX reference (archive here, for your convenience) in this article even mention this program. A rather gross failure of our beloved GNG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Should not delete the article but can place a refimprove tag.NANExcella (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NANExcella: Sorry for the very late reply. I confess I fail to understand the logic of this vote. So far as I can tell, there is no sourcing to improve it with, which is why I claim it fails GNG and why I nominated it for deletion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. SpinningSpark 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no verifiable notability, on the basis of WP:NCORP or WP:NWEB. The current sources number two dead and two that are about something else. WP:BEFORE scares up fifty articles about hairstyles for every one about the subject, generously. -The Gnome (talk) 17:22, 25 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 16:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnet Fain[edit]

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

Not meeting minimum inclusion requirements of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Most of the available references are from local news media which is not enough to demonstrate notability. Hitro talk 09:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only non-trivial reference is a local obituary; nothing in the article suggests any SNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor references. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:28, 27 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. So Why 13:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raaikishori[edit]

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

Could not find a single reliable source. — F R ⁺ 07:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found nothing in English (even the TV network's site no longer works), perhaps there is something in Bengali? @Winged Blades of Godric: is the only Bengali-speaking AFD regular I can think of. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 23 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. So Why 13:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Allen Brooks[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 07:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though a lot may not be written about him, he has been in numerous american tv shows throughout the years. Livinginthepink (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having lots of bit parts does not add up to notability. Does not pass the multiple significant roles in notable producetions guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the has worked in so many shows makes him notable enough for wikipedia. Notability does not mean "being famous". Notability means having recognition in a field, which he has as evidenced by the parts he has played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.195 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — 67.164.93.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I can't find significant coverage about him, fails [[WP:NACTOR]] as well as [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]], delete per [[WP:DEL8]]. Sam Sailor 18:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, as a search turned up no quality sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:47, 28 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. So Why 13:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kilimanjaro (song)[edit]

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

As per WP:NSONGS. Information from this may be transferred to Enthiran (soundtrack). Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the song has received numerous awards, therefore it should satisfy WP:NSONG #2. Hzh (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for subject obviously failing the relevant criteria of notability. The criterion #2 in WP:NSONG states that the song muct have won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. None of that has happened, per sources cited. -The Gnome (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The awards won by the song would the equivalent of major awards for the language of the song concerned (example given is the Grammis, the equivalent for Swedish songs), therefore satisfies NSONG#2. Hzh (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I'd be honestly glad if you or anyone else could direct me to a Wikipedia policy that considers as equivalent one of the awards specifically named in WP:NSONG with any one the awards won by the contested subject. Or, at the very least, some Wikireliable sources that claim such equivalence. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The honour of India's equivalent for the Grammys may go to Filmfare. Although this song may have received a Filmfare nomination for its singer, it is best kept within the soundtrack article to help the latter's expansion. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the name Filmfare Awards should indicate it is an award for films, therefore its equivalent would be the Oscars, not Grammy. Hzh (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In so many words, WP:NSONG still not met. -The Gnome (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'd find that topping the chart [8], winning awards, and multiple sources [9][10][11] would fit a number of criteria of NSONG. Hzh (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were I to look into the source you provided, Hzh, I'd find that the subject song has not been "topping the charts" but "ruling the charts," which, of course, is but another promotional term used by agents, fans, and other involved parties to big up the success of a song. Perhaps the contested song topped the charts, indeed; we need clearer reporting than such jargon.

As to the sources you cited, I do not see what they have to do with anything: The subject still fails WP:NSONG. You might believe there's something wrong, e.g. cultural bias, with the WP:NSONG policy, but we decide on the basis of policy and not personal viewpoints.

P.S. Not that the sources you cited amount to anything: The first and the second use almost identical wording (e.g. "Chinmayi, who sang the duet along with Javed Ali, said she was initially apprehensive as she did not know if her voice would be retained," etc), the result no doubt of the promotional efforts by the singer's camp. Kudos for that, folks, but no Wikipedia cigar. And the third source is a book about Tamil cinema where the song is name-dropped once among the other songs in the Enthiran movie. -The Gnome (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue that ruling the chart does not mean topping the chart, then please note that charting by itself can be notable. The other sources do concur that the song was a popular song, in addition to the awards won. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, the book Pride of Tamil Cinema, to an extent, is a case of WP:Circular, hence it fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by WP:Circular, can you show how it copied from Wikipedia? And can you address the question of the awards? Hzh (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, see here. This happened after usage of the book was discouraged during the failed FAC of Mullum Malarum (its status as a circular book was discovered during the FAC, not before). Now getting back to the delete discussion, I still am not in favour of the Kilimanjaro song having a separate article as it violates WP:CONTENTFORK. All its content is best used at Enthiran (soundtrack) as that can help expand the soundtrack article and prevent its merger with the parent article. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:CONTENTFORK when it deals with a different topic and passes criteria for WP:NSONG for having charted and won major awards. Hzh (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hzh, I will certainly argue that "ruling the chart does not mean topping the chart." Not the first time I come across promo fluff and managerial euphemisms. As to your "charting by itself can be notable," then you must think a song that breaks the Top 100 at the bottom slot has "charted" and is, thus, notable. Well, I disagree. -The Gnome (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that a reporter on the Times of India (which by the way gives Top 20 music charts since 2010) would consider breaking the top 100 as ruling the chart. The journalists at the newspaper should know what is on their music charts. Hzh (talk) 20:33, 28 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 16:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayesh A. Punater[edit]

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

Non notable businessman. 2Joules (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability; article is basically a curriculum vitae/resume. Quis separabit? 18:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill, non-notable businessman who fails WP:BIO and GNG. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing resumes.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:33, 27 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. So Why 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ayertey Odonkor[edit]

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

Non notable advisor etc. whose thesis etc has been published by Scholars press. I don't think that this makes him notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for subject failing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. An economist who's a member of the AEA, also serving on the advisory committee of a publishing house. Nothing there. -The Gnome (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:01, 29 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. So Why 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Hammadeh (lawyer)[edit]

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

Being a lawyer for a powerful company does not make a person notable. Notability is not inherited. 2Joules (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can't vote for deletion at present, but I see the signs of a promotional intent. Deb (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:AUTHOR; lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Just a promotional CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill lawyer who doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Reads like a resume. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:02, 29 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 Before renominating, consider merging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah as an alternative per WP:ATD. So Why 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layton Utah Temple[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. 2Joules (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom may be unaware that we do have articles on Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:E.M.Gregory I am aware of the category. My concern was that at present we are not even aware of the location of the building. The only information is that the mayor knows the location, and he may divulge it in the future. That is why I wanted to remove this until at least the location and other information is known. 2Joules (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a news article about the site to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn’t really about speculation or rumormongering. The church announced its building a temple there so it’s going to happen in all likelihood. If the standard is to wait until ground is broken or they start going vertical, I guess that’s fine. But I would beef up the refs, especially as a couple are dead. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are primary and article is WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice on recreation in the future. SportingFlyer talk 23:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We could move it to Proposed Layton Utah Temple for the nonce, and move it back to Layton Utah Temple after the dedication. The fact is that all Mormon Temples can be sourced to meet WP:SIGCOV. There will be WP:RS coverage of the location, of the construction, of the pre-opening opportunity for non-Mormons to visit, of the dedication and of the Temple going forward - there always is. There is alreay local TV coverage of speculation about exactly where it will be located; the Mayor says that the Church has already bought the land and he knows where it is but he's not telling. I have met Mormon temples before at AfD and, well, they can always be sourced, they just can. It is simply more efficient to KEEP the article and let it grow along with the temple. And it is better for the project to keep an article on a major church that people will expect us to have an article about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing the article won't be able to be sourced if a location is announced - but in order to pass WP:GEOFEAT it needs the classic require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. All we have now is the announcement (which has gotten some coverage) which may also violate WP:NOTNEWS. Best to follow procedure here and wait until a location is announced/construction starts. SportingFlyer talk 19:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-ify until the specific location is public; I don't see how WP:GEOFEAT can apply at this stage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have properly sourced the article. I suppose we could draftify, but it seems more user-friendly to just keep it. There really is no doubt that a Mormon temple will be notable, and, if they cancel it, will be extremely notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it would be reasonable as well; as you say it will definitely be notable one way or another in a few year's time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:19, 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 delete. So Why 13:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steeleye[edit]

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

Non notable company created last year. There may be COI issues here as well. 2Joules (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Clearly WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable corporation, lack of significant coverage. Some of the material sounds promotional. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:05, 29 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 Rio Rancho Public Schools. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Rancho Cyber Academy[edit]

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

I know that schools get a free pass, but I don't think that non notable online schools get the same treatment. 2Joules (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This venture features in a 2012 Technological Horizons In Education article ([12] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), though not as the main subject of the article, and there is also some coverage here but a GDPR-block prevents its evaluation. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a small alternative school (158 students), but a secondary school (grades 6-12) nevertheless. [13] If there's nothing else to say beside that it exists, then Redirect to Rio Rancho Public Schools which is the district article. It's an actual school though, with a building. Here's a news article about the district [14] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks to fail GNG, and there's no content in the article to save for crying out loud (an unsourced statement that it exists, full stop... is there really no CSD for that?). If people are intent on having WP:LINKFARM/WP:DIRECTORY pages like Rio Rancho Public Schools that list this, then I guess redirect. Basically just using Wikipedia to link people to an organization's website, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rio Rancho Public Schools - Valid search term, Redirectsarecheap and all that. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rio Rancho Public Schools#High schools - Useful search term. No valid reason to delete rather than redirect has been given. There is sourced material that can be added to the target article. Just Chilling (talk) 18:13, 26 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. So Why 13:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skinnipin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apart from the notability issues identified the article currently seems to be just a last of names and draft sections. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article could have possibly been Speedy Deleted due to no assertion of notability whatsoever. Apparently this band was active in the 80s so it will be difficult to find online sources. But with various advanced searches I still can find no indication that this band even existed beyond some recent social media posts of dubious nostalgia value. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:08, 26 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. So Why 13:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzion[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, for subject clearly failing WP:NMUSICIAN. Strings have tightened up. -The Gnome (talk) 17:33, 25 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 with no objection to being recreated as a redirect if and when one of the artists has their own article. So Why 13:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristjana & Agnar[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StraussInTheHouse hello and I note your concern about the sources. I will point out that there is a longer article on the is.wikipedia for Kristjana Stefánsdóttir, and that Kristjana & Agnar are considered to be important figures on the Icelandic Jazz topic. Some sources I have found for you to look at for this article are. visir radio RUV.

Kristjana has been awarded the Icelandic Theater Award three times, and nominated for the Icelandic Music Awards several times. I recommend looking at Kristjana's own overview of her awards. It does also pick out some of the more positive reviews of her work.

I have focused on Kristjana here because I consider that it is easier to establish notability for her. Looking at Agnar should be done as well, so here are some sources. Iceland Music Ismus, less is avilable on the world wide web for Agnar. I would not have chosen to group them together as has been done as it does not appear to be a pairing in the careers of either musician above that of each musicians own relevance.

Do let me know what you think. Frayæ 20:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

And some of the many unremarkable mentions in the media related to Kristjana.

Discogs
Iceland Music
Borgarleikhus
Ísmús
Akureyri Music School
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Fri database
MusicBrianz
icelandicmusic.com
kvennabladid
kexland.is
Icelandic Canadian Club of Edmonton Norðurljós
solheimar
Tónlistarskóli
film
dalvikurbyggd
spyr
dkg

Comment: Frayæ, as you said, your comments and links are about Kristjana Stefánsdóttir, whereas this discussion is about whether the collective "Kristjana & Agnar" meets the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. I am not seeing anything better than the brief All About Jazz review/notice of their album together, which is not really enough. You may be better creating an article specifically about Kristjana Stefánsdóttir, using the references which you have identified? AllyD (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be perfectly good enough. Frayæ 12:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete this article with the intention of making an article about Kristjana Stefánsdóttir instead. Frayæ 12:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 13:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JBC (group)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find much of substance about this band. Renata (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:41, 22 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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abea[edit]

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

Article makes mention of award but no significant coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and doesn't meet WP:RS Edidiong (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is indeed "the oldest olive-oil maker" in Greece, it should have mentions aplenty at least in the Greek media. A search there, with the help of some tools, reveals almost nothing except routine mentions in lists, etc, showing essentially that the company exists and is active. It seems all we have are primary sources. -The Gnome (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable, historical industry of Crete. It is an important part of the industrial history of Crete and the urban development of Chania; see this article in the website of local daily of Chania, el:Χανιώτικα Νέα; also this (@ Crete News.gr). About the importance of the present day company in Crete -with a short glance in its history- see this article, published in the Greek mainstream daily Eλευθεροτυπία. ——Chalk19 (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, Chalk19, why not add those sources to the article? See below for more. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I love how those !voting keep because of historical or other reasons, and supplying sources here at AFD, would not be more beneficial to just supply those sources on the article, and then !voting "Keep" because of notability sources now on the article. I am stating this because I have seen several instances when "delete !votes" are advised to find sources and improve the article. It seems this would be a two way street. Otr500 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that, in some such cases, the editors who suggest Deletion are advised to WP:FIXIT. Which is actually the policy about "being bold" in Wikipedia editing, under a different title. In reality, the admonition to boldly improve an article loses currency when we're going through an AfD process. Improving the contested article and, if possible, stopping the process is rather up to those who are suggesting Keep. As to the much suffering WP:BEFORE, that's an obligation of the nominator; not of AfD participants. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as it stands now. Feel free to ping me if anyone adds some good references and I will happily look at it again. Ifnord (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reformed the article. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is notable in Greek region, not sure about the authenticity of these resources on EN Wikipedia. Mia Watson (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an historic company. We've usually been much less restrictive here with just-founded embryonic firms. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the "oldest olive oil processing plant" in a given country is a tenuous but sufficient claim of significance in my mind. Sources are okay. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on account of subject's history and position in its field, though that is barely passably documented. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 27 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. So Why 13:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker Island (video game)[edit]

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

This article contains three reviews as references. Of those sources, two of them have a "Submit your game for review" option ([15] [16]). One of which has the following: Submitting your game to Edamame Reviews is a great way to reach a highly targeted audience of iOS and Android gamers and industry influencers who view our site multiple times each day. This quite obviously casts doubt on its reliability and independence of the subject. For these reasons I believe this doesn't satisfy WP:NGAME. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - firstly, disclosure, I am the AfC editor who accepted this article, so obviously there is a degree of bias with that. Hopefully I can make a suitable case despite that.

The article was certainly right on the boundary of getting through, but that was somewhat more because of verificability rather than straight-up notability. Notability for video games is always a nuisance (remember, WP:NGAME is an essay - a good one, but not a supplement. It's primarily GNG that governs it). This is compounded because judging the sources independence is a nuisance. It's not surprising that most game critic sites ask for them - they need a sufficient turnover to survive. Remember all news websites ask for news. This can create both bias (being positive so everyone submits) and non-bias (being independent so users actually come to the site).

My judgement was that Edamame was on the wrong side, while Gamezebo was on the right. I felt this was sufficient (with the Player.One review to prove it was verifiable but I also had a hunt elsewhere to cover notability. , Source 1, Source 2 (needs google translate) Source 3 are the best alternate sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off, I agree with Nosebagbear that this is a somewhat borderline case. But, I think that the Player.One review in combination with the infogame.vn review establishes notability with respect to WP:GNG. Additionally I think that Game Zebo is also a reliable source for this article because in that very page you linked they say "Do not offer to pay for reviews. There is a big, fat line between editorial and advertising here at Gamezebo." I have no reason to believe that they are lying, especially given the tone of the rest of that page. Asking for and receiving game review copies in exchange for the possibility of a review is common practice in video game journalism and doesn't compromise the independence or reliability of the source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The VG/RS search engine (WP:VG/SE) , based on sources identified as reliable for video gaming topics, indicates that this topic probably does not meet the bar for notability, whatever sources have been provided above. Do all of the works provided above indicate that they meet the bar to be identified as reliable? I would guess not. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of points here. Firstly, WP:VG/SE provides a useful list (thanks, I'll refer to it in future) of both inclusions and exclusions - sources 1, 2 and 3 don't appear on either. Meaning that even if you took the list as gospel, you'd still need to come to your own conclusion on each of them. Secondly, I don't need each of them to meet the bar - if we take gamezebo as given since it's on the list and seems reliable by personal inspections from several of us, that only requires one more source. There are 4 in the offing (not counting edamame) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list is mostly drawn from WP:VG/S--the search engine is just useful for using those sources trivially. Indeed, we need to come to a conclusion on the other three sources. As I said (because I have not investigated), I would guess the other three do not meet the reliability bar (based solely on their names--only one has widespread TLD [.com] and that one looks entirely domain specific, sites of which do not often indicate reliability or which indicate unreliability). Now, if Gamezebo is the only source, and the GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources discussing the topic in depth (i.e., reviews or substantial previews), that bar is certainly not met, even including the above sources. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Izno: WP:VG/S explicitly states that "This [sources] list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination" so the fact that a source isn't on that list and doesn't have a standard TLD is enough to judge it unreliable? Player.One is a Newsweek Media Group organization with a professional editorial staff and no indication that it is unreliable as it uses the same editorial practices as the other branches of the Newsweek Group. It is a published, independent authority from its subjects which should be more than sufficiently reliable for the standards of WP:GNG. That in combination with gamezebo, which it seems you agree is a passable source, is sufficient for passing GNG. But just in case, I'll go over the sources.
      - Edamame is unreliable as it accepts money for publishing articles.
      - Pocket Gamer's content is a republished press release
      - Infogame.vn is in Vietnamese which doesn't change the fact that it is a reliable source. It has a professional editorial staff and their advertising policies don't indicate any issues that would interfere with the independence of their reviews.
      - AppCheaters appears to just be a one person blog-like operation
      - Player.One is reliable as discussed above
      - It appears we agree Gamewebo is reliable, as it has editorial oversight and independence
    - That's three reliable sources providing in depth, independent coverage. This is sufficient for passing GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like @Izno: says, it doesn't meet the WP:VG standard. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How so - if Gamezebo, Player.One & Infogame aren't all on the WP:VG list then that is neither a positive or a negative ruling on them. How do those not on the list fail to meet the standard exactly? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep On the VG sources issues, unless we have previously discussed the source and determined it unreliable, not being on the list doesn't mean the source is not reliable; we'd have to evaluate those sources in more depth, but for purposes of an AFD discussion, these one offs can be considered on their own. On the specific game, there does seem to be some minimal coverage, one of the first Kongergate titles for mobile, and some of the mobile-based websites do discuss it. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage but there's enough to give this the benefit of doubt. --Masem (t) 17:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If sources that have been determined to count as reliable sources give it significant coverage, then it meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 19:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough significant coverage for this game to pass WP:GNG. We require significant, reliable coverage in independent sources. Sources mention the game, but that's hardly enough to show it's notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep as technically having multiple reliable independent (somewhat) in-depth sources. The sources cited in the article: JayIsGames is good, if short; GameZebo is okay; Player.one looks good and seems like a good source without a more thorough examining; TouchArcade is basically a directory entry; AppCheaters doesn't look good, lacking usual reliability hallmarks; Pocket Gamer is a press release copy; not sure about InfoGame, but I don't see any reliability hallmarks (such as about or editorial page or something), language barrier notwithstanding. So that makes 2 decent GNG sources and possibly another plus some extra sourcing for content. I guess it's the utmost minimal bar for GNG, which it barely passes. If the developer ever gets an article, merge. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep along similar lines of Masem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saichon Radomkit[edit]

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

Contested prod without rationale or improvement. No indication he, or his band, was notable. And searches did not turn up the in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG, and nothing indicates he passes WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. It is possible that non-English sources exist but I was unable to find any using Google Translate and the Thai Wikipedia didn't provide any either. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was lead vocal of one of the top band in Thailand 40 years ago. So online references will be hard to find. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The band is notable, but whether his post-Innocent career is significant enough to warrant a standalone article seems more borderline. There's this 2015 interview in Naewna (dead link[17], but mirrored here), but I couldn't find much recent coverage that wasn't about the band's reunion concert. In any case, if we had an article for the band this could be redirected there. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I am reluctant to say that he is totally non-notable as an individual performer because there may be Thai sources that I cannot find and/or translate. But here are some recent Thai media sources in English: [18], [19], [20] -- indicating that the gentleman is now a nostalgia performer representing his 80's band. He would be eligible for a redirect that band's article if there was one. Otherwise, we need Thai experts to track down reliable sources for his other work. He may be accomplished and respected in his country but we need reliable sources for verification. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Qutaibah al Majali [edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No significant coverage for this person, only minor mentions. Does not appear to be notable per WP:Notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree there is wide coverage in both Arab and English media and i added some resources now. He has many points that support his notability: first he is who recruited zarqawi! Second he was manager of Maktab al-Khidamat in jordan. Third is that two of his sons were with isis. I think he is notable in this regard--مصعب (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- article mostly discusses why people he knows are notable or what they have been up to, not what the article's topic has done to be notable. Can't find good sourcing, and first two hits on google are to this WP article. Articles cited don't even mention him. Apparently fails WP:N ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited to notable people the subject knows or the organization he works for. The insignificant coverage that is left out there leads me to believe this is a clear-cut failure of GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable delete Heshiv (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heshiv, TheGracefulSlick, and El cid, el campeador: i added some new resources showing notability (his activity was related to 2016 Al-Karak attack). What's your opinion now?--مصعب (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@مصعب: The article talks about Qutayba, his son. His father is still briefly mentioned and not discussed at length. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no. I added new 3 resources. There's 2 paragraphs talking about him and not just mentioned briefly--مصعب (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article is a bit link-bombed, but there does seem to be significant, independent, in-depth coverage, such as here and here. The Arabic language version of the article, [21], provides a bit more detail, giving a good impression of the encyclopedic nature of the subject. I !vote weak because I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be sure about this last point, if being a recruiter and unofficial spiritual leader of a group of unclear size is really very encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maroghini[edit]

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

Contested prod, rationale was "Some RS can be found on GNews and GBooks but none cover him in any significant detail. Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO" StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article in 2006. Someone replaced the stub with a copyvio, which I reverted in 2009. It's not a great article, but I think it passes notability, and wiki is not paper. Here's something from 2016 that describes him as "Internationally acclaimed master drummer Maroghini" [22] He is a teacher and author. I'm sure the article could be improved. Andrevan@ 18:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also couldn't find any suitable sources. The above-mentioned article isn't even about the guy, it's about a Caribbean-themed event. Maroghini gets mentioned in a photo caption, not even in the text of the article itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a flickr photoset with a number of press clippings[23]. I don't really know how to obtain Jamaican newspapers. I only mentioned that photo caption because it refers to him as "internationally acclaimed," so at least someone is claiming that. Here is a Jamaica Gleaner article which is specifically about Maroghini[24] Andrevan@ 18:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, I can't find any good substantial coverage. Non-starter on notability; clearly does not satisfy MUSICIAN or GNG. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 23 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. Per WP:SKCRIT#1 because the nominator proposed merging and no one else voted to delete or redirect. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 00:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topcoder Open[edit]

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

Should be a Merge and Redirect to Topcoder. This event does not appear to be notable - given a lack of coverage in Reliable Sources, but company itself is and so a slimmed down version of this page can be merged there without long list of dubiously notable results. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 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 speedy delete per G11. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hazem Beltagui[edit]

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

DJ of questionable (doubtful) notability. Even if Beltagui is notable this article could benefit from WP:TNT as it reads like a promo not a NPOV article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete subject does not meet inclusion requirements at this time. Lacks the requisite coverage. G11 not unreasonable, but I have a high threshold and it's at AfD anyway.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:15, 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 Trainwreck. I know there have technically been !votes on this but per WP:IAR I'm closing this as it's clear bundling them was a bad idea. I will renominate them separately. (non-admin closure) StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skinnipin[edit]

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

Please note I am bundling in the following related articles:

I've been going through a lot of band-related orphan articles and put A7s on some old bands which I did not consider to make a credible claim of significance and I am almost certain do not satisfy musical group notability guidelines. Pinging Ritchie333 as the admin who declined the A7s on grounds of requiring discussion. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me how Los Dávalos and the other articles are being considered for speedy deletion. The Peruvian music group is listed among one of the notable performers of Peruvian musica criolla ([25]) and considered one of the notable exponents of the culture from Arequipa ([26]). Being "almost certain" is not a compelling reasoning for deletion.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 17:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshalN20: the first source is just a passing mention and they are indeed the primary topic of the second source but having a painting unveiled of your musical act doesn't make it notable. Sources exist, sure, but none of them are significant enough to warrant encyclopedic inclusion. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these articles aren't related at all except that they are bands, they're from different countries, different genres and different time periods and should have all been listed seperately. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Purulent Excretor as the French article shows a number of references including magazine references and keep Los Davalos as it has rs coverage, no view on the others yet, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point Atlantic306. I'm going to IAR and close this as a trainwreck and renominate them individually. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:08, 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 no consensus. Numerically, opinions are divided, and there is no clearly prevailing side in terms of strength of argument. The issue is whether the subject's coverage in media sources makes him notable. Editors can disagree in good faith, as they do here, about whether a given quality and quantity of sources confers notability, and since this is a matter of editorial judgment, it's not something which I as closer can decide by fiat. The arguments on both sides pertaining to the subject's role as a Wikipedian are not relevant in terms of our applicable policies and guidelines, and they also don't matter much in closing this discussion because they more or less cancel each other out numerically. Sandstein 18:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Brad Matetsky[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Most of the cited sources are mere mentions. The single story in Princeton Alumni Weekly isn't enough for general notability. The WSJ piece does not appear independent of the subject, as they interviewed him. (WSJ is focused on ARBCOM, not Newyorkbrad.) Regardless, defining-down GNG makes no sense. Whatever editing work the subject did in connection to Rex Stout does not pass WP:PROF as Matetsky is not a professor. Coverage like martindale.com might be acceptable per WP:V but is really WP:ROUTINE, indicating the subject is non-notable per WP:MILL. That a few journalists used Matetsky to spout two-sentence opinions in their rags does not a "legal expert" make. He's a contributor, at best. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "independent of the subject" is defined as "a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective," which does make the WSJ independent for the purposes of this article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For ArbCom, yes. Not necessarily for individual arbitrators who were interviewed. Their quotes about themselves or about ArbCom are not independent coverage. If the piece goes into more detail about Ira such that it meets the other parts of the GNG after the interview bits, then yes, but merely being quoted and having filler text does not meet it (I can’t access the article anymore so I can’t say either way, but I thought the distinction was important.) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: People w/o WSJ subscriptions (myself included) can still read the entire source for free thanks to the Wayback Machine: [27] Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: The Wall Street Journal is an independent source because it's independent of the subject. See the full quote from Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). ... Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." As far as I'm aware, a source does not become un-independent simply because it interviewed the subject of the article. Could you point to the policy or guideline that you're basing your view on? (I'm not trying to patronize you; I'm genuinely curious if this is something I've previously completely missed.) Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N: should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. and "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. Quotes about oneself are primary and non-independent and we never count interviews or quotes as counting towards notability. If there is an article about a person and there are limited quotes from them in it we count it, but simply being quoted or interviewed has no bearing at all on notability. Also, just to clarify for people who aren't aware, Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources is an essay. I don't have an opinion on Ira's notability, but simply being quoted or interviewed is neither independent or secondary. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count quotes and interviews as secondary in the sense of the substance of what the interview or quote says, because the source doesn't vouch that what the quote says is true. But we certainly count interviews towards notability - the fact that the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post devotes a lot of column space to quotes certainly mean they consider the interviewee "worthy of notice", and "considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction". --GRuban (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. If there is commentary on the interview itself that is secondary we do (and for high profile interviews in WaPo, the NYT, 60 Minutes, etc. they are almost always indicators that a person was already notable before it), but interviews/columns/quotes are primary sources that don't count one iota towards notability on their own. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I'm still not on board with what you're arguing here. ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. <- that does not indicate that the WSJ wouldn't be "independent" here. It's fine to argue that the WSJ article isn't "significant coverage" and therefore doesn't come into play for notability—I'd completely agree with that. But it's definitely an independent source. (Also, note that the "identifying and using independent sources" essay is linked from WP:GNG.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17 interviews are not intellectually independent of the subject. Even if there is editorial oversight, we require that what is actually published not be from the subject themselves. This is why an interview on NPR does not establish notability: it is not independent even if the publisher of the interview is (you could also argue it is primary and fails the sourcing requirements on two grounds.) My argument is not that the WSJ source is not independent: it definitely is. It is that the quotes from him about ArbCom/what he does are not and would not establish notability on their own, even if they were substantial.

The question we ask is if there has been coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Interviews and quotes are not in themselves either secondary or independent of the subject. What is independent and secondary is any coverage or commentary that the WSJ may have after interviewing the subject. If that exists, then arguably meets the independence test, but the WSJ just deciding to quote someone is not an indicator of notability on any of the criteria the GNG establishes. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think Brad is swell. I also think that in the long run this page is more apt to be a curse than a blessing for him. Notability in WP terms is borderline; I seriously doubt (to the third power) that this page would have been created if Brad were not a Wikipedia Person™, ergo tipping the scales for me to deletion at this time. I feel sure that eventually there will be a page for this subject; this, however, is not that moment. Carrite (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the article subject. As I said on my talkpage before the article was created, I'm not taking a position on whether I'm notable or not in Wikipedia terms. As I think about it, I can't think of any one specific thing that would make me notable, but at some point a confluence of smaller things might add up. From a more meta point of view, I understand both the "Wikipedia shouldn't aggrandize Wikipedians" (or "less navel-gazing") argument and the "Wikipedians should eat their own dog food" (or "you should suffer with the rest of the BLP subjects") argument. So "enough with me talking about me, why don't you folks talk about me," and we'll see what happens. I don't plan to participate further in the discussion, unless a factual error comes up that I feel bound to correct. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete We need to avoid navel gazing in Wikipedia. Beyond that nothing comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a New York-based Wikipedian, I have seen Ira Matetsky and heard him speak, but have never exchanged any words or other communication with him. Thus, on a completely impersonal basis and without resorting to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it should be noted that most Wikipedia biographical entries are not sourced with 17 inline cites from such references as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. There is nothing inappropriate with occasional navel-gazing since, after all, we are the center of our own universe and a legal celebrity in our midst, volunteering and devoting years of his time and energy to the project so near and dear to all of us should receive his just due on the pages of the project. Ira Matetsky did not encourage the creation of his biographical entry, but once it came into existence, it would be most appropriate and fair-minded for it to remain, if only for the benefit of Wikipedia users and advancement of knowledge. There is no advantage to be gained through its deletion, but its potential disappearance would be a loss for Wikipedians. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner: "...devoting years of his time and energy to the project so near and dear to all of us should receive his just due on the pages of the project." This is not what WP:N says. Deletion is a course of action here because we have notability rules and they apply equally to all articles. We don't play favorites. You have no evidence that Wikipedia benefits from keeping this article, especially against the backdrop of a universal criterion like GNG. You also cannot make any claim to being fair-minded when you advocate uneven application of subjective whims. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roman Spinner: I have to say, even though I am the creator of this article and am thus inclined to think it meets the notability guidelines, Chris Troutman is right: the argument that any WP editor should be "rewarded" for their hard work with an article about them in mainspace is ridiculous. If this article is to be kept, it must be based on notability guidelines, none of which say anything about giving any editors their "just due" with an article about them. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom and Carrite.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a lawyer who runs multiple legal magazines, and is cited as a legal expert by some of the most influential news media in the United States; and, lest we not forget, one of the most powerful people on the number 5 web site in the world. We should not be navel gazing, but neither should we have false modesty here, we are not John Smith's Blog. The combination qualifies for notability. --GRuban (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"legal expert" is, in fact, the way the Washington Post and Vanity Fair referred to him in citing him.[28][29] --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nom; a lack of in-depth direct coverage. Also, notability is not inherited. EnPassant (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth direct coverage, except the Princeton article. Not notable, at least yet. talk to !dave 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a couple of points to give some context (disclosure: I know the article subject and have worked with him on Wikipedia).

It is hard to work out from what links here whether the existing links to this article from other articles are just from being included in the 'Wikipedia' navigation template or whether the links from within the actual text of those articles. My suspicion, based on looking at the list of 'what links here' and the 95 or so articles in {{Wikipedia}} and from searching for the subject's name in Wikipedia, is that all the links except one are generated by the template. Only one link is a genuine one, and that is from the surname set index page Matetsky that was created by the editor who created this article (and which will need to be deleted if this article is not kept). It seems that the article creator (Everymorning (talk · contribs)) created the 'Ira Matetsky' article as an orphan (i.e. with no existing links and no 'demand' for the article to be created in terms of existing red-links). The article in question appears to be part of a walled garden of articles on individual Wikipedians that (mostly) don't really link out to the rest of the encyclopedia (these articles function more as footnotes containing subsidiary information on the 'Wikipedia' topic), though even there the subject of this article is not currently mentioned in the Arbitration Committee article (the most logical place for a mention, though that article, probably correctly, doesn't name or link to individual arbitrators).
Looking further afield, there are a total of four Wikipedia articles where the article subject is currently named and could be linked: In-chambers opinion, John Marshall Harlan, Fer-de-Lance (novel) and Morrison Waite. In all four cases, the article subject is named as an author or editor in the references, and in all cases (note the COI disclosure) the article subject added these references himself (in chronological order: [30], [31], [32], [33]).

Overall then, the article subject is hardly mentioned on Wikipedia. The only people finding and reading the article will be those Googling the article subject, those browsing the Wikipedia template, and those who might follow author/editor links from article references. And looking through the article, it is hard to see where the article subject will get mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. This may say something about the notability of the article subject. I'm not going to give my view on that, other than to say that it can be hard for Wikipedians to objectively judge the notability of other Wikipedians. In that vein, some articles on Wikipedians do end up deleted or redirected, see: 1 (Michael Snow), 2 (Kat Walsh). Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has many strings to his bow and, when aggregated, this gives us plenty to write about. He therefore passes WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The statement above we never count interviews or quotes as counting towards notability is fine as a personal opinion but is not adequate as a fair summary of thoughtful consensus on the matter. See WP:INTERVIEW and, perhaps more importantly, WT:INTERVIEW. I can see why there is a difference of opinion and I'll go with "keep". Thincat (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Princeton, WSJ, legal expert ... what's the issue here? Just because his notability concerns Wikipedia? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Portrait of Lotte[edit]

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

"Viral" video that has not received sustained coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Will work with main contributor CrayonS to improve the article. Vexations (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a notable page, if someone contributed instead of facing me with an AfD. 🖍S (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You've only slammed a notice for an entry without contributing in any way. This lemon needs to be squeezed, doesn't it now? It is notable to an extent, but we think not. So, please add more to it instead of trying to cause unwanted attention over a page that has just started. Thank you. 🖍S (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please. It has nearly 10 citations, with most being reliable sources, all with sufficient information for a page. 🖍S (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if you consider this a self-published short film, the coverage seems to be sufficient to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power, it's not me who did it. I just stumbled across it and found news about it. It's not self-published. From my perspective as an intermediate Wikipedian, the thing about Wikipedia is that it's not aimed at original research and it's a place for notable articles. For one, I am over (possibly about) a thousand miles away from the Netherlands, which is where the filmmaker originates. I agree on ~~Keep~~ but I just hope many other contributors help. Thank you for reading. 🖍S (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources

[34] This is Yahoo's Trending now. Claims that Hofmeester is a filmmaker and an artist. That's dubious. He makes corporate videos for businesses and organizations like a midewifery, he's not a filmmaker and an artist.
[35] consists almost entirely of statements by Hofmeester
[36] again, mostly (the same) statements by Hofmeester
[37] This Time piece is more in-depth, and makes an effort to explore the (super-creepy) reasons why a video of a pre-pubescent girl gets far more attention than a largely identical video of her brother.
[38] A larger piece, from a source I've only seen used once, in Hermes (missile), which rather looks like clickbait.
[39] This BoingBoing piece offers nothing that hasn't already been said, and is not much more than a repost of a yahoo piece.
[40] This offers absolutely nothing, except an opportunity to pretend that that there are lots of sources (without mentioning that they all repeat the same stuff.
[41] looks like a dead link from where I tried to access it.
[42] My Modern Met, a site "formed to create one big city that celebrates creativity" doesn't look like the kind of site that has editorial control and a policy on fact, checking, but has been used in Greg Gossel, Kalliope Amorphous, Shirin Abedinirad, Hendrik-Jan Grievink, COMBO, Land art, Neo-Futurists,Michael Murphy (sculptor), Street art. I don't think its any good as a source, and evry article of theirs that we've ever used is supperficial clickbaity feelgood stuff.

Not mentioned in the article is the Guardian Piece that Hofmeester himself wrote, [43] and which, to a degree, all the source above appear to have used. There isn't anything in those sources that Hofmeester hasn't said. In summary: All the source are not dependent upon the primary source and have not conducted their own investigation, they merely repeat an unreliable source. The subject has been shared a lot on social and other web-based media, and garnered many views. That's the definition of a viral video. Is this anything but a viral video? Not according to the sources. Do we cover viral videos? I don't think we should, so that's why this has been nominated for deletion. Vexations (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipedia cares about reliable sources. It doesn't mean that you can't use reliable sources that have "most of its information from an unreliable source". Why don't you help?! Thank you for The Guardian one by the way. 🖍S (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why do you want to analyse every single source it uses? Vexations, clickbait? Well, I've been forced to get as many sources as possible because of your AfD entry. To be quite honest, some of your pages aren't that good. You've hardly got much opinion to even back you on this one. 🖍S (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks. Discuss the argument, not the editor, that you disagree with. Vexations (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of it and I'm sorry if I personally attacked you. To be quite honest, it's not like I called you a troll. We are like the only ones in this AfD discussion. It is quite notable. Not perfect but it will survive. 🖍S (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ will be my conclusion. ~~Weak keep~~ for Power and for Vexations, someone who doesn't even bother contributing to my article unless it's an AfD entry, ~~Delete~~. OK. So, this discussion has been on for 7 days (1 week). Guys, should we get the administrator? 🖍S (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the insults. Vexations (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insulting you! I'm just saying you're not bothering to contribute to what I've made. Why don't you contribute? I would really appreciate it. Please can you. 🖍S (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contributors are reminded to !vote only once and instead of attacking the nom, show us why and how this meets WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @RandyKitty. Sorry about my insults towards you, @Vexations. I was only frustrated on why you don't contribute. I just think this article does comply with WP:N and definitely WP:V. It will never be a featured article but it is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. Just because these sources have roughly the same information, more or less, they still give and provide notability. 🖍S (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on your talk page, CrayonS Vexations (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you very much, Vexations. 🖍S (talk) 21:28, 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 no consensus. So Why 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coded set[edit]

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

Please note that I have included the following articles in this AFD:

I came across these articles while going through February 2009 orphans. I ran a PetScan search for articles whose only reference was Federal Standard 1037C and which were February 2009 orphans and came up with these sixteen articles. They're clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia and I considered whether using the transwiki process to move them to Wikitionary would be worth a shot but other than the Federal Standard document, none of the terms seem to have much coverage in other sources, and definitely not enough to warrant their own article. I also considered moving one of them to List of terms in Federal Standard 1037C but realised that would leave out a metric ton of other terms not uncovered by the PetScan query but included in the aforementioned document, plus it would approach What Wikipedia is not territory, so I decided to AFD them. I will notify the relevant WikiProjects. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~ by nom's rationale. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC). Change vote provided that somebody is prepared to do the expanding or marging. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
[Notable per Graeme Bartlett and Andrew Davidson below]. Oppose. Deletion of these terms would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. If they are not notable, they clearly ought to be merged, perhaps to List of telephony terminology, List of telecommunications encryption terms Glossary of broadcasting terms, or a similar page. (I am not sure exactly where these should go because of the jargon I don't have time to decipher; it might be desirable to create a new glossary). They do have enough coverage to be worth including somewhere. James500 (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC) I have modified my original !vote by adding the words in the square brackets. It appears these terms are even more important than I first realised and should each have a standalone article. It was unhelpful of the nominator to nominate so many articles at once. James500 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep all these topics each could be referenced and expanded to become suitable article. Perhaps they are only definitions at this point, but there is much more to say. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The nominator just seems to want to delete these because they are orphans but that's not a valid reason to delete. Per WP:IMPERFECT, they should just be left as stubs, awaiting further attention. Andrew D. (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft-ify all all of these are WP:DICTDEFs sourced only to a single government document (one of them currently has a single reference, but that's to a different copy of the same federal standard), and none have links from other pages. There is no indication of encyclopedic notability for any of these terms at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most into appropriate others. Most are details of topics of larger articles, for example Independent clock is a detail of Plesiochronous digital hierarchy. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps there is a rationale to delete some of these individually but there is not sufficient justification to delete all. Also deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Please look for more productive ways to improve the encyclopedia. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nominator’s rationale.Mccapra (talk)
Comment: Andrew Davidson, no, my deletion rationale is WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I merely mentioned that I came across them while de-orphaning the February 2009 orphans. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 10:52, 29 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. So Why 13:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Sinha Jha[edit]

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

Non notable person, fails WP:GNG. Created by a 1 article writer (indicates WP:COI or possibly paid writing). Most of the references are links to articles written by her or from non-notable sources or brief mentions. Jupitus Smart 14:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Needs improvement though. Berrocca Addict (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST due to a lack of in-depth information. The subject seems to be a run-of-the-mill critic/editor/journalist, with very little information about them. Indeed, most of the scant information that can be found is related to the subject's book, which itself is non-notable, and so the Jha likely does not meet WP:AUTHOR either. Two other points should be noted; one is that as a journalist Jha's name appears in articles that she authored (these would constitute mentions in passing or trivial mentions, as said articles are not directly about her). The second is that (per nom) that article may be fatally tainted by promotional material.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW; WP:ATHLETE is met and an article being a stub is not a reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hyde[edit]

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

Insufficient notability; still a very small stub after three years; one page view per day. GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He competed at the Olympics. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) says that "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). " Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Olympic athletes meet notability standards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Berrocca Addict (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLY, having competed at the Olympics. The nominator should take a look at WP:TOOLITTLE and WP:NOBODYREADSIT, as their claims of being a stub that no-one looks at are not relevant. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article subject competed in an Olympic event, and so passes WP:ATHLETE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or incubate — I'm not saying the person who's the subject of this article is of insufficient notability within the scope of the WP project — but I do question the need to have a distinct article on him — I think the article should either be incubated further, or be merged into another page, a list perhaps, something along those lines.

As much as I appreciate all the education that is being offered on WP policies and guidelines, I would equally like to remind the honorable editors of WP Pillar #5: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; ... The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." --GeeTeeBee (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Xing[edit]

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

This is basically a resume with no indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:ACADEMIC (as David Xing or alternate name Dadi Xing). The award of "2014 QSR Best Student Paper Competition" also does not seem notable, and as far as I can tell he's not a Research Professor at Virginia Tech but he was a Research Assistant (i.e. a grad student). ... discospinster _talk 13:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as written, I'd have thought it was prime for G11 or A7, per the lack of notability of the scholar and the promotional style of writing. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Miles away from WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:PROF or any other applicable guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 28 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 16:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KSEX[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not show notoriety, WP:NCORP. Weakly referenced. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, fails & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable references offered. Not much independent RS coverage found in search, just a trade article about the station's demise. Fails WP:CORP, WP:NMEDIA and WP:NWEB. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Internet radio streams do not get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just for existing, but there's no evidence of the kind of reliable source coverage it would take to actually make it notable. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 25 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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

39ers Gang[edit]

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

The thin depth of coverage on this gang's history or significance contribute to its lack of notability, per WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:EVENT. This was a local criminal gang that murdered, sold drugs, and got caught. The sources cited all describe the criminal trial, with trivial coverage of the gang's history or wider notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Local New Orleans coverage of the trial - and not much beyond that - not sufficient for NCRIME or GNG (or if we're looking at this as an organization - definitely not for CORPDEPTH).Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was one of five recently created articles about local street gangs including Ride or Die Gang, Young Melph Mafia, 110ers Gang, Taliban Gang, and Dooney Boys. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficient as of now per NCRIME.BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORP requires national, or at least regional, coverage. This gang has neither. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Candy Films[edit]

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

Does not show notoriety, WP:NCORP. Weakly referenced. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As referenced in the article, it won the 2013 AVN award for Best New Line. That it might need additional references is not grounds for deletion. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to find but didn't found much, could pass WP:GNG due to award winning company. Mia Watson (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORP fail without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The studio gets some trivial mentions in the mainstream press. The references in the article appear to be reworked press releases. Finally, industry awards outside porn don't count for much without independent RS interest. Inside porn, AVN's independence from the porn companies that advertise on it is questionable. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think we'd still have to debate your first argument, but...the title of the article is the subject; pornography is a category. AVN is thus an independent source; where else would evidence of something winning their award be best found? (An album winning a Grammy would be found at grammy.com, wouldn't it?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, fails CORP & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very minor award, and no other sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even a real studio, just a series of cookie-cutter videos with no indications of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:37, 23 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. Considering that substantial sourcing was added very late in the discussion. Renomination is possible. Sandstein 18:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tile wisdom[edit]

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

Mistranslation from the Dutch. The "tegeltjeswijsheid" is not the tile but the aphorism; it can be (and often is) applied to aphorisms in other contexts (compare here or the sources within the article itself, neither of which discuss tiles). I couldn't find sources actually discussing the tile itself. I don't see that the Dutch aphorisms are meaningfully different from English ones, and the Dutch don't limit the term to Dutch aphorisms anyway. I was thinking of redirecting to "aphorism", but "tile wisdom" would not be a likely search term. Huon (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article now says (since before your nomination) that the "tile wisdom" is an aphorism, as appears on a tile. I defer to Dutch-speaking readers about the availability of sources about this topic. I think it is reasonable to cover not just the idea that this is an aphorism, but that there is a particular genre of decorative art the word comes from (tegeltjeswijsheid contains the Dutch word tile; aphorism/proverb/saying are apparently different words than tegeltjeswijsheid). Note that at least one source in the article specifically discusses tiles: "You usually see them painted on Delft blue tiles with an image." (machine translation of [44]) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can repeat what I said in my original WP:PROD: "Unremarkable term which could apply to tiles from anywhere, or words written on any medium. ~~Image appears not to be a genuine tile, but a photoshopped creation.~~ (image since deleted for copyvio). No significant references found on Google to suggest this will ever be worthy of an article." So, I see no reason to translate the name of an aphorism from Dutch into English and then call that English word notable, especially with these two references. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the deletion nomination was subject to an edit conflict; it took me some time to write it, and when I started it still said the subject was the tiles, not the aphorisms. That said, I also explained why writing about Dutch aphorisms as if they were something special isn't appropriate; the Dutch equally apply the same term to any aphorisms, including non-Dutch ones entirely unrelated to tiles. Not even the tradition of putting them up on walls is unique; the Dutch apparently just use a different medium. Reliable sources discussing the Dutch choice of medium are still absent. Huon (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Huon and Nick Moyes. This was a poor article accept from AFC. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Huon as it's utterly unremarkable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The translation is literally accurate (it's not a "mistranslation"). But while it may be an obscure Dutch term, that doesn't mean it belongs here. "Utterly unremarkable", I agree. Paul Koning (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ignore the translation discussion and search for the actual SUBJECT which is nl:Tegeltjeswijsheid. It sounds trivial but the subject meets notability requirements as it has been written about in-depth by numerous sources. This is distinctively Dutch and goes beyond words on actual tiles but extends to Dutch cliches in general and computer-generated phrases in this tile-style. Look it up.[45][46][47] —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I just located a more substantive source, in Spanish.[48] Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete/rename? Here's the problem: if there is an English name for this, this phrase isn't it. GBook search produces several pages of obvious misreadings of scanned books, but nothing like this. If we want to rename this to the Dutch word, I'm leery of that given that hits for the word in English-only searches mostly produce clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this vote. If the title were tegeltjeswijsheid (I'd be happy for it to be moved there), would you think it is an appropriate subject for an article? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I also think it's an odd !vote. Maybe Mangoe might wish to strike one bit out? Trying to move this along a bit, and referring to my above rationale for deletion, were this Dutch word ever to be commonly used in the English language, then I'd say this article should stay. But there's no evidence of this at all. Show us an English language source that talks about this topic, and I could be persuaded to strike my !vote. But I can't imagine anyone I know ever spotting a painted tile hanging on a wall and saying "oh look, what lovely tegeltjeswijsheid over there!" And I'm sure they wouldn't mentally convert it into English and say "ah, tile wisdom, it's always nice to see some of that!" Now, Schadenfreude, that's a completely different kettle of fish, and quite acceptable to have a page on this foreign language word because the term is used in the English language quite a lot. The idea that we translate every language's minor aphorisms into every other language and then create a Wikipedia page on it is quite frightening. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I don't see why it matters whether the Dutch word is used in English or discussed in English-language sources. To me, this seems to be a tradition that is meaningfully distinct from other traditions in other countries. (There is a certain prescribed format for wall décor aphorisms, which doesn't seem to be the case elsewhere.) Others seem to disagree, or think that there are insufficient sources describing this tradition. Those are the relevant topics for discussion here, not whether English-language sources describe the tradition. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If people use the Dutch word in English-language sources, then we should simply rename the article. If not, then what is it called? "Tile wisdom" appears, by all evidence, to be a coinage of whoever write this article. If we can't find English-language sources which use some English word/phrase, and we are unwilling to use the Dutch word, then there's no way to justify having an article. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is unwilling to use the Dutch word? I've just moved the article because I agree it's a better title. We have a Spanish source that uses the Dutch word, and a Dutch source that (obviously) uses the Dutch word. There are no English-language sources. (I'll just note that there are plenty of unreliable sources out there that use the phrase "tile wisdom".) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon, Nick Moyes, Cameron11598, Chrissymad, and Paul Koning: Please take another look at this article and the new sources supplied. A much more thorough article could be written based on the Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant and Onze Taal sources, but I am hesitant to do so given that I am working off of machine translations. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have located and added a number of additional sources, including two articles (one in a newspaper and one in a magazine) that discuss the tradition in depth. I have also located evidence of a museum exhibition about this tile tradition, an effort to begin a national day celebrating these tiles, etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 22 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. Proposed redirect target does not exist. Sandstein 18:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Rudolf[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP objecting to it. Subject is just another lawyer. No special notability asserted. Same subject (per username) also adds to the article, establishing a COI. Alexf^(talk) 10:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I endorsed the PROD, just not notable enough. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 14:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Kathleen Peterson Although I don't think he's notable enough for a separate article, he is not "just another lawyer". He has been a major participant in one very high profile case and also participated in two other cases involving subjects with Wikipedia articles. The fact that there has been COI contribution to the article doesn't make the subject any less notable. There is current discussion for redirecting Kathleen Peterson and possibly Michael Peterson (criminal) to Death of Kathleen Peterson. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet PROF, and does not meet BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 18:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Nelson[edit]

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

Non-Noteable athlete. Sportygeek (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NTRACK. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and doesn't appear to meet any criteria at WP:NTRACK. A 15th place finish at the youth world championships and a 12th place finish at the Australian national championships as an adult are his best finishes and neither supports a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing does not meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. WP:NTRACK is not met either, but would in and by itself not a free pass to inclusion. Sam Sailor 18:01, 28 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 16:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Salad Bar[edit]

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

Neologism lacking evidence of notability. No evidence of use of the term "positive salad bar" in this context other than the two sources provided. If this was coined 10 years ago, one would expect broader coverage. There may possibly be a different English term for the literal Japanese translation, however, there is no indication. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable neologism; the jawiki article is equally sparse so I doubt there's a more common translation in use. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Dekimasuよ! 17:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kappa Alpha Order chapters[edit]

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

This article amounts to being directory information. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7. Dolotta (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom along with the other chapter directories. wumbolo ^^^ 11:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I agree with @Wumbolo that many of the other chapter directories can be nominated as well. Ajf773 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree with @Wumbolo: and @Ajf773:. I mentioned this AFD on the WP:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities talk page since there are potentially 119 articles that could go up for various methods of deletion. See [[Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society]]. -- Dolotta (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dolotta: While it does, "consensus seems to be emerging" is not a neutral wording of a WikiProject notification. wumbolo ^^^ 16:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I'll reword it. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your reword is appreciated, Dolotta, but you cannot get a consensus to delete 119 pages at an AFD for one page. It will require either a batch nomination or a noticeboard discussion. Primefac (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep few if any are simply lists of schools. An entry consisting of the school, chapter name, chartering date (, dates of inactivity, dates of rechartering) and Fraternity District split into whether they are active or inactive doesn't seem to fall into the definition of #7 at all.Naraht (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Naraht, that's exactly what this particular page is (just a list of schools). The other 119 pages are irrelevant to this discussion. Primefac (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Primefac No, it isn't. It has chapter name and school.Naraht (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I suppose my main point was more that your !vote sounded like a "keep" for every page even though this AFD only deals with one. I also interpreted your statement to mean "a list of schools that was linked to specific chapters", because just listing a bunch of schools would be pointless as there would be no way to know which chapters were where. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK. I should have split my keep into one on this page and then a comment on Dolotta's line. Your response to him covered mine.Naraht (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDolotta,Wumbolo,Ajf773 My question to each of those who feel it should be deleted is whether there is additional information for the chapters that would cause you to re-evaluate. The chartering dates for each chapter are available, with the years being available from Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, and dates available from both Kappa Alpha itself and at least some from secondary sources. (As the chartering date is not normally a fact in dispute, primary sources should be fine.) Rechartering dates as well. Kappa Alpha Order does not appear to have geographic regions. I appreciate that each of you may have different standards here.Naraht (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Wikipedians: I've started a section on the article's talk page where we can respond w/ any improvement thoughts. -- Dolotta (talk) 16:28, 25 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Film Festival of Melbourne[edit]

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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article seems harmless. Nominator did not supply a reason for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No deletion rationale provided by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonable references, and no deletion rationale provided by nominator. -- Longhair\^talk 08:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly made to self promote the references provided are of local or small unknown publications. Iamricednous (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Morning Herald and SBS are by no means "local or small unknown publications". -- Longhair\^talk 12:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been created for the sole purpose of self promotion nothing that is needed on Wikipedia. Iamricednous (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit on WP was to create this AfD and later make a comment on that AfD saying "...clearly shows this page was created by paid editors who have been involved in socket-puppetry on Wikipedia..." That's a lot of inside technical info for a newbie. What account(s) have you used previously? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wikipedia Contributions seem a bit suspicious do you get paid for the articles you create or edit? How many accounts do you use under the same IP address? Seems like your account needs to get investigated as you are showing a lot of personal interest towards my edits. Iamricednous (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – per comments above. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 05:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable film festival, no reason to delete except unproven allegations Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above with no reason being given for deletion.--QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Thorvald Andersen[edit]

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

A Danish architect (1835-1916). Created since 2012 with no source provided. A WP:BEFORE cant find any sources to establish meeting WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some text translated from the Danish Wikipedia. He designed some notable buildings that (I think) are on the Danish counterpart of the National Register of Historic Places. This suggests that in-depth references exist, but since he died more than 100 years ago, those references may not be online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eastmain Hi, adding additional info does not help towards meeting notability, but adding along with independent, reliable sources do. If he is notable, I believe there will be some architecture books talk about him and his work. Content in print or in any languages are welcome as long as they are independent and reliable. I AfD this page, as I cant find sources in EN internet on Mr Anderson (and there was another Thorvald Andersen (8 April 1883 in Aarup, Denmark - 3 May 1935 - who also was an Danish architect). Do let me know if you would find source to support the nobility of Mr Anderson, for I will withdraw the nomination and if not the AfD would stay. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

*Delete Non-notable Danish architect doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Iamricednous (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet, !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iamricednous. Congratulations on jumping straight in to AfDs: unusual for editors as new to Wikipedia as you are, so you're very brave! Now, exactly which of the criteria for speedy deletion applies here? -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hoary. It is my personal choice if I jump straight in to AfDs or edits. Your first contribution on Wikipedia was an AfD labelling Robert Cummings as "non-notable" so how can you question my contributions on Wikipedia? Iamricednous (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Iamricednous, I fear you are misreading something. I was congratulating you. I was asking not about your contributions but about the relevant criterion for speedy deletion. This has nothing to do with my contributions; but since (i) you bring these up and (ii) the name Robert Cummings is (by now) unfamiliar to me, I took a look at my earliest edit and found that it was this one, to the article Rangefinder camera. Now, which of these gents did I call "non-notable"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you have now deleted "Speedy", Iamricednous. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern I have taken it on board, for any discussions please feel free to do it on to my talk page rather than here. I have also noticied you haven't made a vote here but like to leave comments on other votes Hoary. Iamricednous (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, potentially speedily as per CSD criterion A7. Has no references, and next to no information as how he is notable. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 14:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant government architect, the images in commons of a series of handsome buildings in Frederiksholm are persuasive. Just tag it for sourcing and hope for WP had an editor fluent in Danish who is an architecture buff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can find some passing references to him in reliable sources, but nothing substantial. E.g. [49], [50]. The only buildings of his that are on the national registry appear to be here, but it is an entire district that is on the registry and he is one of many architects who designed buildings in the district. It's possible that sources exist in books that have not yet been scanned by Google (or in periodicals) but I'm not seeing notability at this time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how gBooks works. It did have "everything" a decade ago. But there was a lawsuit, and the result is that searches now only show random and partial contents of books. Just fyi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:CREATIVE#4. REcognizes notability on the basis of leaving a body of work that is notable. This is the rubric under which we keep articles on creative professionals of all kinds without requiring sources beyond documentation of the notable (painting, poem, design) work created. My argument here is that the group of Andersen buildings designated notable / historic by Denmark constitute such a body of work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article needs to be expanded, there is already sufficient evidence of notability.--Ipigott (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Designed big 18th-century buildings still in use. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search term:

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

Week keep leaning week delete. First of all, do not search for Carl Thorvald Andersen, there is almost nothing to be found. Search for C. T. Andersen (use alt. search term). Andersen's ouvre is well described, and as such you could argue a "keep" vote pursuant to WP:CREATIVE#4, as does the good E.M.Gregory above. The question is then: is his body of work really large enough for a keep per CREATIVE#4? He obtained the position as Bygningsinspektør (approx. Constructual Engineer), of which there were 9 in Copenhagen around the turn of the century according to da:Bygningsinspektør. Andersen's area was solely Holmen (lit. 'The Islet') which at that time was exclusively the naval base of the Royal Danish Navy. As opposed to his successor Olaf Schmidth [da] who is well described in e.g. Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon, and who designed for other areas than Holmen, I find no sources online that mention Andersen having done anything apart from the 10-12 buildings on Holmen. So, is he a significant government architect?
A source or two indicate, that better sources may be available offline. And as the man retired in 1899 at the age of 64, and lived another ~17 years, it is very possible that some sorts of newspaper articles or retrospectical article from the first quarter of the last century exist. For now, with the limited availability of digitized Danish sources, this is all I can do. (Do anglophone editors ever think about how fortunate it is to have well developed digitized archives?) Sam Sailor 18:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:CREATIVE. Sourcing & scope are acceptable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because he squeaks past WP:CREATIVE, other and better sources may turn up, and unlike so very many biographees of whom similar comments could be made, he's been dead for a century, there's been no muttering about promotional editing, and a future descent into advertising is very hard to imagine. -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the interwiki links prove that he is notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:08, 28 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birch Grove Software[edit]

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

Essentially the catalog of a company's products. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, a run-of-the-mill software company. None of the references that deal with the company are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The other references deal with the products, but the topic is the company and not the products and therefore they also fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 24 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 Whitewater controversy#Origins of Whitewater Development Corporation. Only one sentence, so presumably little to merge. Sandstein 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewater Development Corporation[edit]

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

NOTINHERITED. Only notable for its involvement in the Whitewater controversy. Delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the scandal itself. This looks like a reliable source: FINAL REPORT of the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters. U.S. Government Printing Office. (June 17, 1996). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Whitewater_controversy#Origins_of_Whitewater_Development_Corporation where the subject is already covered. Not independently notable; but a plausible search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 27 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. Consensus to keep and improve is clear. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 17:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

N-localizer[edit]

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

Page is terribly promotional. As you can see in the history I had cleaned it up and merged/redirected what was useful and nonredundant (which was almost nothing) to Stereotactic surgery after having cleaned up that page in these diffs. All the promotional primary-sourced dreck was restored, as you can see in the history. Please flush this. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The N-localizer article provides information that is well documented via literature citations that are found in the "References" and "Further Reading" sections of the article. That information is available at no other Wikipedia page and serves as a useful introduction to the N-localizer. Jytdog's use of the words "dreck" and "flush" suggests a lack of objectivity. I ask that the editors of Wikipedia intervene and prevent further tampering with this article. Kirigiri

Kirigirl, please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am no expert on this device, so cannot tell you whether what the article on it says is accurate, but at least the article is well referenced. Vorbee (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well this is certainly a surprising nomination for AfD, and so is the language used in the nomination. The article is well cited and the topic plainly of encyclopedic interest. It is hard to see it as promotional given that the device was invented in 1978 (forty years ago, surely long past patents and new academic papers); nor is the tone promotional. The works cited are by at least 14 different teams, so academic promotion also looks unlikely, or at least can form only a small part of the content. I'm happy to be persuaded but it looks like an obvious keep, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is excessive detail, gives excessive importance to this device, and is full of what are pretty clearly self-citations. It "looks" fine, I know. I spent significant time looking at this and the apparent COI is very, very apparent. This is why I merged it away. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not overlong, and is about a well-defined topic. Brown invented the device, so six citations out of twenty-five seems pretty reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are exactly 11 citations. 5 are from Brown. They are all primary except for one. This is very typical academic COI editing. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC) (fix Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

You're overlooking the citations in the Further reading section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not citations. They are not used to generate content. Please don't confuse the discussion.

Again, the device is given DUE weight in the article to which I merged it. This page is academic promotionalism. Which is a thing that happens. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "inline citation" with citation-in-general. See WP:GENREF. "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked ..." Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. The style of this page is inline citations. There are only 11 citations. More essentially; I do understand that you cannot see that this page is fundamentally promotional and is academic spam. This is a problem from which our project suffers; I have dealt with many instances of this. It is sadly common for academics to abuse their editing privileges to promote themselves and their work and even sock to do so (example, example, example.. and that is just some of them, and just some of them who resorted to socking). This person's editing is exactly like theirs. Excessive (apparent) self-citation, use of primary sources to build a promotional story in violation of WP:SYN and WP:PROMO, altogether UNDUE weight on their work. All evading COI management. I will not respond to you further. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this was another-- SPI. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Jytdog's assertion that the N-localizer is sufficiently discussed in the stereotactic surgery article to which it was merged. Although Figure 1 was copied from the N-localizer article to the "History" section of the stereotactic surgery article, that figure alone is insufficient to describe how the N-localizer functions. Specifically, three N-localizers are required to accomplish the necessary geometric transformation, as discussed in association with Figures 2 and 3 of the N-localizer article. Imagine that you are reading the stereotactic surgery article and would like to understand how the N-localizer functions. In the absence of a link to the N-localizer article, you would have to obtain one of the cited references from the stereotactic surgery article. Why should a reader be required to go to such lengths when a short article describing the N-localizer already exists on Wikipedia? Moreover, Jytdog dismisses literature references from the "Further Reading" section of the N-localizer article because those references are not in the "References" section of the article. A simple solution to that issue would be for Jytdog to move those references from the "Further Reading" section to the "References" section. Kirigiri

Would you please reply to my inquiry at your talk page? Or here, would be fine. Managing conflicts of interest is very common, as I am sure you aware, and the first step is disclosure of the conflict of interest. I am sure you are aware that failing to disclose conflicts of interest is something that brings consequences in the real world. It does here as well. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable topic. The size is not excessive, however there is some puffery of the topic that can be edited to improve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. It is notable, and the article can be improved. scope_creep (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : WP:G5 does not apply, since the sockpuppet was blocked after creating and contributing extensively to the contested article. Here is the page's history. -The Gnome (talk) 18:00, 25 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 and redirect to List of tallest buildings in Edmonton#Projects. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encore Tower[edit]

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

A residential / apartment building in Edmonton, CA. Like thousands of apartment buildings in the cities of the world, nothing notable about his Encore Tower which has not achieved any acclaim review or significant as it is still under construction . Fails WP:GEOFEAT CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. 22:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Redirect, presumably to List of tallest buildings in Edmonton#Projects or more specifically to this building's row in the table there. Redirect partly to keep the article history in place, because this is under construction and will have coverage about it. The List of tallest buildings in Edmonton has just two existing buildings with more floors. It seems highly likely this will be more clearly notable, soon. By the way, I hate and/or am bored by the numerous AFDs about tallest buildings, with the deletion nomination being ignorant about the obvious alternative-to-deletion of redirecting to the list-article. Obviously superior to outright deletion. So the AFD will not possibly succeed in deleting the article, and it doesn't count in running up your deletionist scoring, or it should not. Not sure how the deletionists score themselves, maybe causing an AFD discussion and using up other editors' time counts as a win no matter what. No offense intended to this deletion nominator specifically. :) --Doncram (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Does not appear to be notable. As it is mentioned in the Edmonton list article, redirecting there is acceptable. MB 04:38, 22 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Lalremkimi Darnei[edit]

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

Miss Femina Northeast India and model. A minor pageant winner of NE India and non notable to pass WP:NMODEL or WP:BASIC as no cult following or any in dept coverage of the subject. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete about a year and a half ago we decided that those who did not win a national beauty pageant needed lots of sources or another claim to be shown notable. We still have a bloated legacy of articles on contestants in US beauty pageants that needs to be gone through and those on non-notable people nominated for deletion. There are clearly still some floating around on non-notable people. However this does not mean we should let this plague of non-notable articles proliferate in the case of articles on people from India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to request that the page be not deleted. Lily is a public figure in India known and followed by more than a million people . she has currently more than 60k followers on Instagram and increasing.The article will help a lot of people know about her life.

Comment Please note Wikipedia is not a forum to promote/advertise any subject. A subject needs to be notable according to Wikipedia gudlines first and not the other way around as to have a page in Wikipedia so the subject would gain more notable. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A public figure known and followed by millions is already notable. The page just aims to provide information about her life for people searching for her on the Internet. Promotion /advertisement not intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lirlam (talk • contribs) 06:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the article subject as a public figure is not enough; verifiable, reliable sources are needed to assert such a claim, and none do. As for the statement "The page just aims to provide information about her life for people searching for her on the Internet", that falls very clearly (almost a word-for-word replicate of what not to use Wikipedia for) within WP:NOTPROMO.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ; Lacks notability hence doesn't meets Wikipedia's guidelines to stand enough.--Made In IN (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ; She is a public figure of India before she entered the pageant. She’s an up-and-coming star who has an almost ‘cult-like’ following during the recently concluded Femina Miss India 2018 and is still more notable than the winner. This page seems to aim at providing information about her life to those who are searching for her. And isn’t that the whole point of Wikipedia - To provide information? LazerBeam17 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— LazerBeam17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Well sir, I just joined Wikipedia. I have already made edits on music pages. So that claim is as outrageous as it could be. This website aims at adding content or information relevant for the people. I’m just trying to do the best I can.

LazerBeam17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks a claim to significance as beauty pagent winners must be held to WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG criteria, which the subject fails to pass due a lack of in-depth coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject has already met the criteria serial number 2 which state that the subject must have a large fan base or a significant cult following. As far as using the article as a promotion/advertisement tool is concerned, the subject doesn't need Wikipedia to do the same as there are other tools like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc.Just for general information, here is the subject's Instagram credentials https://www.instagram.com/lilydarnei/?hl=en , not to mention the fact that there are still millions who knows the subject but don't use Instagram. If a public figure known to 50 million people of Northeast India is not notable as per a few people, then I have no arguments against Wikipedia or anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lirlam (talk • contribs) 06:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable at best (50 million followers on Instagram is not a uniquely large amount, especially compared to other models), but what of the other two points listed by WP:NMODEL, and what of WP:GNG? It can easily be claimed that a subject is a public or popular figure, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia build around verifiable, reliable, in-depth sources, and none seem to exist that describe Darnei as such. Note also that Wikipedia does not hold Instagram followers to be a claim to significance, nor is Instagram a reliable source of information. I will agree with you that the subject does not need a Wikipedia article to promote themselves, as they already have Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. This leads me to cite WP:NOT again, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially when said information lacks sourcing, and cite WP:NOTFACEBOOK.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ; per did-not-win 2018, and no other notability citations. Articles do not exist for the other non-winners. David notMD (talk) 16:29, 22 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 notability is eventually either achieved or demonstrated elsewhere, I would not be opposed to this article's recreation. If reliable sources are found (or become available after close) that prove its notability beyond a shadow of a doubt and editors do not wish to restart from scratch, then message me on my talk page and I will happily consider restoring to the draft namespace. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Sankeshwar[edit]

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

A sugar factory. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV or any details/in dept coverage. Most sources found are listing/directory of the factory. Fails WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Lots off listing but no reliable significant coverage on which an article can be written — F R ⁺ 08:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find sources apart from business listings and mentions in a few governmental websites. MT Train^Talk 14:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since, after many a word combination, not much came up. Notability not there. -The Gnome (talk) 18:04, 25 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Arora[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT and fails WP:V. I declined a CSD G2 nom as it is not technically a test page. In a sane world this would be a speedy but there is no criteria that really applies. In any case, even if the subject passes GNG the article is unacceptable and would require a from scratch rewrite. Will happily withdraw the nom if someone wants to undertake that and can ring the WP:N bell.

We really need a CSD G15 (article is FUBAR) but until then... Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Article is an unmitigated mess beyond hope of recovery. Ravensfire (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as best I can tell (which is hard because the article is a mess) this is a biography of a living person. Also as best I can tell, there are no sources. This is clear grounds for deletion.03:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a list of the productions this person has appeared in, and the roles played. No assertion of notability. Might have been a candidate for Speedy under A7 (no indication of importance)? Neiltonks (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. I think he might be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the sources. Unfortunately it doesn't really resolve the principal problem. As I noted in my nominating statement, it is entirely possible that the subject is notable. But the article quality is so poor that it is not salvageable absent a from scratch rewrite. I will repeat my offer to withdraw the nomination if the article gets a full scale overhaul and notability is established. But in its current state it just can't be kept. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the sources I don't think they ring the WP:N bell. The first two are obviously just short PR blurbs. In fact they are identical in wording. The third is also clearly a PR fluff piece and I doubt the source is RS. The fourth is little more than a couple of sentences confirming the subject's existence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NACTOR; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to meet GNG per the above but in particular Ad Orientam's reply re: sources. This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed does not exactly instill faith in the source.

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angelika Rama[edit]

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

Minor actress who fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO due to a lack of significant, notable roles, which is unsurprising given the subject is 6 years old. Some coverage exists, but this is very limited and does not make any credible claims to significance. Quoting part of NACTOR, actors must "[Have] made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." to be considered notable enough for inclusion, and this young actress has not made any. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find any sources that would confirm any kind of notability. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 01:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 04:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 04:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor actresses, especially those under the age of 10, should not have articles unless we have lots of good and solid sources to actually show they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly doesn't meet any of the grounds under WP:NACTOR Nosebagbear (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 23 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Carreon[edit]

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

Subject filed for certificates of candidacies Commission on Elections for Philippines President. Although there are reputable source from CNN, New Strait Time, but the articles mentioned Allan Carreon only in passing as one of nuisance candidates, calling himself "Intergalactic Earth Ambassador" where he claimed he was encouraged to run the position by aliens from the Facebook group.
Fail WP:NPOL or WP:GNG as without in dept content written about Mr. Carreon. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage all basically approaches this as a slow news day coverage of the bizarre, not the stuff we make Wikipedia articles out of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — if he doesn't already have a strong claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. While it's true that his candidacy got a blip of media coverage during the campaign, so did everybody else's candidacy — so that just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has passed the ten-year test for enduring significance yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 13:52, 25 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.