Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 June	29 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Sereda[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and not enough reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG. Two of the four references here are to his own primary source "buy the music" pages on online music stores — and while the other two are media coverage, they're both from the same newspaper in his own hometown. Nothing here passes any of NMUSIC #2 through #12, so criterion #1 is the only one that's really in play here — but getting one profile in his own hometown newspaper seven years ago and then having them review his album three weeks later is not enough coverage to pass NMUSIC #1 all by itself, if there's no evidence that he ever got any coverage beyond his hometown and/or at any other time. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the creator was a WP:SPA named "Winnipegcowboy" (the subject being a country singer from Winnipeg whose self-released first album was titled Campground Cowboy.) Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: -- insufficiently notable musician with limited local coverage and slim pickings as far as GNG is concerned. Quis separabit? 19:27, 30 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. joe decker ^talk 04:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Spitz[edit]

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

The subject is a non-notable minor league baseball player. The article was previously proposed for deletion, but the template was removed by the article's creator who is also likely the subject or a relative. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pretty blatant non-notable COI. Wizardman 14:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If high school publications are enough to show notability, I shudder to think of how over flooeded with bios this project would become. It is bad enough that some think ever existing high school is notable, the notion that every high school baseball captain might be notable is ridiculous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails as per GNG. Dial911 (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not played in any major event, Fails Wikipedia:SPORTSPERSON--DBig Xray 18:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while almost all of the "keep" arguments either have nothing to do with those policies and guidelines, or in some cases are actually contrary to policy. To give a few examples, "to delete the page denies Focurc's existence" is a misunderstanding, as existence does not imply notability; "If this page is deleted, how else would this speech be known" indicates both an acceptance that the subject is little known (i.e not notable) and also that the purpose of this article is to make it better known (i.e. to promote it); "the division between language and dialect is purely political" and "differences from Scots are ... substantial" are irrelevant, because whether we regard it as a language or a dialect makes no difference to whether the it is satisfies the notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Focurc language[edit]

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

From the sources it is obvious that this is just a very local dialect which one person has decided to call a language. There is no evidence of widespread or significant coverage of the idea that it is a language. In fact I have not found any reliable source that accepts this as a language. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with some cleanup. The coverage in The Scotsman is significant. Whether Focurc is a separate language or only a dialect of Scots, it is notable. Consider the suggestion that "A language is a dialect with an army and navy". I have tried to edit the article to show that the theory that Focurc is a separate language is controversial. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every language has a right to exist and to suggest to delete the page denies Focurc's existence. If this page is deleted, how else would this speech be known? Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The differences from Scots are quite a bit more substantial than "just a very local dialect" would imply in most minds, besides the division between "language" and "dialect" is purely political. Englisceadwine (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Aye, this is a solid keep from me, per Leornendeealdenglisc and Englisceadwine. More sources and references could always be found, though. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: after further consideration (I admit I was unable to access The Scotman originally, and did fail in my due diligence), I find the arguments of Uanfala, The king of the sun, and Breaking sticks persuasive: with my access to the article, I find that, well, if this is a language, it's one with a tenuous claim; with an arcane orthography that does not translate well to the International Phonetic Alphabet, discovered, apparently, by a 22-year-old landscaper (who has apparently dabbled in constructed languages before), fuelled primarily through Reddit, and rejected by sceptical academics, including a known professor in linguistics and the Scottish language. As such, it's unsupported by academia, the sourcing is suspect (finding a new language should lead to many articles in reputable publications), and the claims are nearly extraordinary. In short: delete; we can recreate as needed, once additional sourcing comes through that substantiates the claims made. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are two references, but the substantial majority of the text of the two is identical, so we really have one source with a small addendum. We are told "The coverage in The Scotsman is significant". It is just one report telling us that one person has made a claim that this is a language. On its own (or even together with the slightly edited version of the same article) it is nowhere near the sort of substantial coverage that is required for notability. Also, even what it is is not coverage of this "language": it is coverage of the fact that one person claims it is a language. The source makes it 100% clear that no reliable scholar thinks it is a language It refers to the claim that this is a language as "the contention of Mark O’Donnell, 22, the language’s main cheerleader online – and the only person ever to have documented it" (my emphasis), and goes on to say "we should note that what O’Donnell says is not given much credence by academics who have devoted their careers to the study of Scots. 'Having considered, with all good will, the evidence presented for there being a separate West Germanic language, closely related to, but not the same as, Scots, spoken in the Falkirk area, there appears to be no reason for supporting such a hypothesis, says Robert Millar, professor of linguistics and Scottish language at the University of Aberdeen." There is more too, but what it all adds up to is that one person (described elsewhere as a "language activist") has decided to call the speech of one small area a "language", and has set himself the task of publicising the fact.

An interesting light is thrown on the reasons for supporting this article by two talk page posts. In this edit the single-purpose account Haarle said that the "language" "can benefit a lot from being described on Wikipedia", and likewise in this edit Leornendeealdenglisc said " I'd say have the page on so at least people can know about it and hopefully do something to help preserve it. Without the page, how would other people know about it?" The Wikipedia article is an attempt to publicise and promote the totally unnotable fringe view that this is a language. The king of the sun (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence for the point raised in that last paragraph is the comment further up this page "If this page is deleted, how else would this speech be known?" The whole thing is an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion of an opinion. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This old version of the article better reflects the status of the dialect or language. My changes were reverted by another editor. I realize that AfD is not the place for content disputes, but I think my old version is better. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with The king of the sun on the main point here: it's clear from the sources that this is a dialect that one activist wishes to present as some sort of exotic new language. This makes the article's title (and most of its content) misleading, but I'm not sure how it impacts the notability: it doesn't matter if it's a language or a dialect as dialects can usually be considered inherently notable. I almost wasn't able to find any scholarly sources on this dialect, so we seem to have only the two newspaper articles to go by, with the possible addition of this paper, which mentions the dialect of Falkirk (presumably the same one) as the basis of a controversial proposal for the standardisation of Scots. Maybe all this is enough for WP:GNG (and maybe GNG doens't matter given the inherent notability), but if the aricle is kept it will need to pared down to a bare core of a couple of sentences. The current article includes a lot of detail about the sound system, but that seems to be based entirely on https://sites.google.com/site/focurclid/ – a website probably created by the same language activist. It's a commandable work, and hope its creator continues to work on it, but WP:RS would require us to avoid basing linuistic content on non-linguistic sources, an issue that becomes even more relevant given the marked exotifying bend that the Scotsman article makes clear. – Uanfala (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment'. I will concede that the version which reflects the uncertainty of its linguistic status is more accurate until more scholarly research is done. However, a flat out deletion is not really needed.Englisceadwine (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel J. Seymour[edit]

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

PROD declined, so let's have a discussion. Subject fails WP:BIO1E. He was "involved" in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, but only insomuch as he was present at Ford's Theater and, as he was five years old at the time, was the last surviving person in attendance. His role in the event is trivial (it's not like he's the physician treating the president) and is too insignificant for the encyclopedia. BIO1E states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"; his role was basically nonexistent other than... existing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Only real notability is actually his appearance on "I've Got a Secret"; otherwise, nobody would remember him at all. Could possibly be redirected to the appropriate section of the latter. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator should have read farther in WP:BIO1E: On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. His experience is described (briefly) in We Saw Lincoln Shot: One Hundred Eyewitness Accounts and a Smithsonian.com piece, and there's just enough known about him to fill out a small article, which could easily be expanded with further detail of what he saw (as related in his own account [1]). EEng 18:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @EEng: I read where it says "may". I take this as too minor and not enough coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline doesn't care how significant or insignificant his role was -- it cares about the coverage, and there's certainly that. There's too much to say about him to integrate into the main Lincoln assassination article, so that leaves two choices: either a separate article or maybe some kind of Witness accounts of Lincoln assassination article, which doesn't exist. E Eng 22:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been covered in independent sources over the years for his recollections. Meets notability criteria and passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I'm having trouble seeing his notability since this seems like a case of WP:BIO1E. He had no role in the actual event and I'm not sure merely being at an event is ever indicative of notability. According to the Sentinel article he didn't see the actual shooting and had so little understanding of what had happened that he wanted to "help the poor man who fell down" (aka, John Wilkes Booth). Appearing on a game show is insufficient to show notability and I don't believe that the coverage meets WP:GNG. Perhaps a redirect might be appropriate, but I'm not sure to where. Papaursa (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't read the discussion so far. I'll quote:

WP:BIO1E: On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
The notability guideline doesn't care how significant or insignificant his role was -- it cares about the coverage

E Eng 00:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the discussion and I would question the claim that he was a "participant" at all. Perhaps your definition of that word is different from mine (or the dictionary's which says "a person who takes part in something"). Surely you aren't claiming he took part in Lincoln's assassination. No matter how many times he tells his story, or to whom, he doesn't get more notable than he was at the first telling. It's not like any new information is being uncovered or remembered. I didn't vote, but I remain unconvinced that he's a notable individual. Papaursa (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you haven't read Howard Brennan either, 'cause nobody's claiming he took part in Kennedy's assassination either.
No matter how many times he tells his story, or to whom, he doesn't get more notable than he was at the first telling – Sure, but the more times it's reported, the more notable he gets. Coverage is what counts for notability.

E Eng 01:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Brennan was an eye witness who testified before the Warren Commission. Seymour was five years old. Comparing Brennan to Seymour is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. As the text you quoted says, it's not about specific role but about coverage. Brennan has coverage. Seymour barely has any. 01:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You said that Seymour didn't "take part" in Lincoln's assassination, as if that was somehow an argument against his notability, which it's not. To illustrate that, I simply pointed out that Brennan didn't "take part" in Kennedy's assassination either. That's nothing like an OTHERSTUFF argument. Anyway, I'm glad you now see that coverage is all that matters. Seymour has it -- not a lot, but certainly enough. E Eng 03:50, 26 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) 21:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - written about in The Daily Telegraph & Tablet (magazine) & HuffPost Joaomufc (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hs was what now would be called a reality show contestant. He's a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if there's thing we love here at Wikipedia, it's footnotes. E Eng 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - should he be notable? Maybe not (but this is better than yet another YouTube personality or model) - and this is not a vital article by any stretch. However - coverage of this individual (due to being the last surviving witness - and even speaking about this in the early TV age) - clearly pass GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple reliable sources writing about him in the past. Besides, the person is dead now. had he been still living it could fall under BLP promotion but it is not the case anymore as it is not a biography of Living Person. This article enriches the encyclopedia without jeopardizing its integrity. So yeah, keep. Dial911 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz Thazinkoko (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 04:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arnhold Business College[edit]

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

I'm finding a single google result for this, which I assume is a printed typo. NSCHOOL does not apply because it doesn't exist. Natureium (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Because of the lack of reliable sources covering this school, we cannot verify the existence of it to the standard we would like. Thus, it should be deleted. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it might have existed; such small, non-degree-granting colleges were common prior to the 1930s. However, the article fails due to an inability to verify it existed. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not listed in Who's Who in China, at least not in this 1932 edition [2] Here's the 1931 edition under Chang Hsiao-Jo's entry [3] There's nothing to write about this school. There are other schools associated with Arnhold including a building in Shanghai Business College [4] With it being in the US, it should have at least some legacy in the US, but it doesn't. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one line, that too not properly sourced. Dial911 (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homo gardarensis[edit]

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

Insignificant case of mistaken identity with no potential for expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are more references available, both from the 1930s with the initial misidentification (e.g Keith, 1930, Nature volume 125, pages 935–942) and resolution (Keith, New Discoveries, 1931, 483; and Smith, 1931, Nature volume 127, pages 963–967), and from modern texts considering the case (Hawkins, 1992, doi:10.1002/oa.1390020108). I'm not certain whether these add up to enough to justify a separate article however. Bondegezou (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand I see definite potential to expand beyond this simple summary.--Auric talk 22:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites a 25-page paper in an academic journal solely devoted to this specimen, which should have been a clue for the nominator that it is neither insignificant nor lacking potential for expansion. The additional sources found by Bondegezou establish solid notability. If I find the time I'll try to expand it—it's an interesting topic—but either way there's no grounds for deletion. – Joe (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and thanks to Auric for expansion, I have added further sources. While the case may be insignificant, the coverage in sources is not. Meets GNG. Sam Sailor 14:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Little to no RS coverage, lack of sourcing has been discussed on talk page for years. –dlthewave ☎ 21:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Non-notable fringe "living dinosaur", as the previously deleted Ngoubou, Muhuru, Burrunjor, Ropen, Kasai Rex, Emela-ntouka, etc. --tronvillain (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Where are the citations showing this is notable? Where are the citations period? Hey I have a winged creature in my backyard right now with spikes on its toes carrying a tiny flame thrower, better get to writing its Wikipedia page. ;-) Seriously, this should have been a speedy delete. Sgerbic (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough with plenty of coverage from 3rd party sources. Surprised that this article remained unsourced in all the years it has been here. I have added sources. One of the first to make any record of it was the biologist Dr. Roy Mackal in 1979 and 81, and his later work in 87 "A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe". His work spearheaded further research and excavation by other scholars over the years. I have added some references to the article. I think this article should be expanded. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, a fringe source and repetitions of that fringe source. --tronvillain (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe source"! Dr. Mackal was a well respected biologist and scholar from the University of Chicago. For your info, we don't go by truth here. We go by notability and coverage from reliable third party sources. If we were to go by "truth" we would not have an article on the Loch Ness Monster and several other articles relating to the U.S. and Europe. You can always take it to Jimmy if you want us to go by truth rather than notability and sources. Good luck! Let me sip more of my tasty baobab juice in this beautiful African heat and enjoy the show. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a WP:FRINGE source, as in not a reliable third party source. --tronvillain (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mackal's A Living Dinosaur? is notorious pseudoscience, and he is by no means a reliable source on these topics. This is all outlined in, for example, Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science!, including discussion regarding how cryptozoologists frequently defer to Mackal's credentials:

"Cryptozoologists have often promoted 'Professor Roy Mackal, PhD.' as one of their leading figures and one of the few with a legitimate doctorate in biology. What is rarely mentioned, however, is that he had no training that would qualify him to undertake competent research on exotic animals. This raises the specter of 'credential mongering', by which an individual or organization faints a person's graduate degree as proof of expertise, even though his or her training is not specifically relevant to the field under consideration." (p. 304-305). :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per others, this is indeed non-notable fringe. Mokele-mbembe is by far the most notable subject in these cryptozoologist-Young Earth creationist corners. While Mokele-mbemebe, this entity is far more so. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Planet Studios[edit]

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

I can find no coverage which suggests that this company satisfies the requirements of WP:NCORP. Some of its games might be notable but since notability isn't inherited that doesn't justify this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not independently notable and some of the sources used in the article are unreliable per WP:VG/RS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; does not appear to be significant independent notability for the developer at this time. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 04:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

João Almeida Photography[edit]

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

This is an article on a run-of-the-mill freelance photography project like thousands of others. The article itself makes no claim of notability. The provided links are dead and would not contribute towards notability anyway since they were primary sources (they linked to a minor exhibit and a photobook). A WP:BEFORE search could not find significant coverage in reliable sources so WP:GNG is not met. Also clear WP:COI since the the article creator uses a nickname that is related to the project and invites people in their userpage to visit this project's website. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Careful with the avalanche of false positives you will find when searching for this on Google, João Almeida is a common name in the Portuguese language. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because no awards, reviews or exhibitions to establish WP:ARTIST. Plus the WP:COI issues. His own webpage lists the following:

São Tomé – Exhibition dedicated to the lush tropical island of São Tomé.
Commended in Sony World Photography Awards 2017 in the Open Competition – Nature category.
Ísland – Exhibition that explores a personal, less crowded and “postcardy” view of Iceland.
National Geographic Portugal – featured at the Your Shot section with a portrait Cienfuegos market, Cuba
Four looks on India – Collective exhibit with Ruben Vicente, João Maia and Luís Ferreira, where each photographer shows a personal view of India.
Finalist of Travel Photographer of the Year 2014 award in the New Talent – Travelogue category.
People and Portraits of Myanmar – Exhibit with Ruben Vicente dedicated to Myanmar.
Para lá da superfície – Photo book dedicates to coastal areas, contribution with a set of photos.
Os Sem Nome – Collective exhibit of 30 Portuguese Flickr photographers.

None of the exhibitions establish notability. He didn't win the Sony World Photography Awards he was commended, for which they give 50 per category; this is not even the short list, for which they give 10 per category. --Theredproject (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:ARTIST. Basie (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional and insufficient sourcing to warrant a page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League teams that finished last before first[edit]

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

Random list that has no notability as a cohesive group. Per WP:LISTN, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." This obviously does not meet that standard. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, if the discussion results in deletion, please speedy delete the redirects National Football League: Last to first, National Football League: Last to First, and NFL: Last to First as well. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. And what about the teams that finished first before last? -The Gnome (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this comes across as original research. Vorbee (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. This is actually filler material for articles between seasons, like now, when sports writers are desperate for something to write about, so there are actual sources.[5][6] However, the ungrammatical title needs to be fixed. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "filler" material was by definition non-notable. AKA "silly season" material.

-The Gnome (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Seriously, we have to take into account the list's inherent lack of notability. This is American football. As in most professional sports in America, the National Football League system is set up in such a way that, after the season is over, the worst teams get materially rewarded, e.g. through getting top draft-picks, etc. The NFL actively promotes the equal dispersion of power so that the league remains interesting and attractive and profitable. Hence the relative rarity of "dynasties."

Moreover, there's a very short distance between a bad season and a good season, something that makes last-to-first not very "unexpected," when we're talking about a set (division) with only four members (teams). There are 16 games in total in the regular season for every team. In a league of 32 teams in total they are too few for a valid, statistical result. It's not a round robin; each team gets to play every other team in their own conference once every three years, and every team in the other conference exactly once every four years.

Let's take the hypothetical season-result of 8-8 for the average team. Well, for example, the 2015 Washington Redskins won only one more game than the hypothetical expectation, finishing 9-7, and ended up 1st in their division; that's just one game won more than the games lost. Same thing with the 2007 Buccaneers, or, going back to 1990, the Bengals. The 2013 Eagles, the 2012 Redskins, the 2010 Chiefs, the 2006 Eagles (it goes on) only had to win 2 games more than the games they lost to top their division. It's not a statistical or sports surprise, really, that this story ("from-rags-to-riches") is repeated practically every year. Yet someone in the article sounds amazed: "[For the last fifteen years] at least one team has gone from last place to first place in their division in the span of just one season," they write. Yeah, and the Pope prayed today. Make a note of it. Or a list. -The Gnome (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there might be some off-season discussion of the topic that approaches WP:GNG, but I'm going with ignore all rules and argue that removal of this list makes Wikipedia better. There may indeed be a large amount of discussion among the sports talking heads in the off-season, but trying to assemble any data on the topic just comes across as forced trivia. Let consensus prevail.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently WP:OR, and would be trivia even if properly sourced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any use of this list as such. Dial911 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Monkey[edit]

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

Unable to find significant RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 20:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching, I was also only able to find fringe sources. Nothing passed WP:FRIND. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Do not merge with Bigfoot. -The Gnome (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we sure this isn't a hoax? I only went through a few pages of google, but I didn't find any sources older than this article. Natureium (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared in Mysterious Creatures which came out in 2002 and cites earlier sources. I don't think there's enough coverage to justify an article, but it doesn't appear to be entirely fabricated. –dlthewave ☎ 01:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, ’’Mysterious Creatures’’ is deep in fringe territory and also generally highly unreliable — I’d take a close look at whatever mentioned there to be sure it actually says what the authors claim. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not a reliable source, my point was that the article itself isn't the source of the hoax. –dlthewave ☎ 16:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax. It's out there! -The Gnome (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC) ...until we delete it[reply]

Weak Keep animal planet and other WP:RS such as this provide sufficient sourcing to validate subject.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Mysterious Creatures, as well as Weird Virginia is sufficient for me to believe this isn't Wikipedia-based citogenesis. Of course, this is a collection of folklore, and was likely invented by somebody. The article is currently WP:TNT-deletion quality, and List of cryptids is not a reasonable redirect target (as that page explicitly avoids redlinks. As I feel it meets current notability guidelines I must !vote keep, but perhaps those guidelines should be adjusted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the subject does not appear to have been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of promulgators and popularizers. Occasionally a fringe source like Mysterious Creatures from a cryptozoology promulgator/popularize produces references that might be considered reliable in of themselves, but in this case it's North American Biofortean Review and Lauren Coleman's Mysterious America. --tronvillain (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights[edit]

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

Pointless list of no interest to the general Wikipedia reader. Not needed, per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTTVGUIDE Joseph2302 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 66 sources, done for every Cup since 1998. WP:IDLI doesn't apply to the layman (we've got plenty of articles here I could argue the same, but someone else likes them and sources them well, so I won't take them to deletion); we've got sourcing and any vandalism is reverted quickly. Nate • (chatter) 20:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seeing as we are throing out blue links, I Like It. I believe this is a relevant list which doesn't fall under Listcruft or Notstats. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources. Other pages for past world cups also exist. Tillerh11 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is well sourced and any vandalism is quickly reverted. There are also various list of broadcasters for various other sporting competitions and those have not been deleted. JDamanWP (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This info is included in other World Cup articles, could be merged with main article but is a bit too long for that. Speed74 (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not a huge fan of the list, but think it is better as a standalone list than included in the main body of the parent article. Not sure what the relevance of NOTSTATS is here. The points on vandalism is not relevant either, the discussion should be about the reasons why the list should or shouldn't exist. I see it has had a lot of page views recently; if I could be bothered, I'd check the recent figures for the previous lists to see if there is an enduring readership once the tournaments have finished. Spike 'em (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a topic is only notable if it meets WP:GNG, ie has significant coverage. Lots of WP:ROUTINE links don't make it notable. Giant Snowman 11:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List contains important, notable information and is too large to be merged with the main article. Smartyllama (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT or merge with the main article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contains reliably sourced and notable information, too large to be included in the main article. Broadcast rights to major events are generally notable, and depending on their size can be too large to include in their parent article, as evidenced by List of 2018 Winter Olympics broadcasters and List of 2010 Commonwealth Games broadcasters -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I fail to see how this list will be of interest after the World Cup has finished, I don't see any real practicality here and consider any broadcaster rights lists a poor use of wikipedia. I would delete them all. Govvy (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as past consensus is for these lists to exist, also an incredible 700,000 page views in the last month although that will of course reduce, but even so ... Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Spike 'em wrote above, I'm not fan of the standalone list, but it's well sourced, which would be only reason I could see for deletion, and would rather see it here than in the main article for the tournament. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That there is "no interest to the general Wikipedia reader" is not something that is backed up by page views. Schwede 66 21:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced. This is world most popular sporting event even more popular than the Olympics clearly notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding this very useful. Arguments that it's info that could be in the 2018 WC article, but that are better organized here, seem compelling. PhilipR (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely useful and worthy of staying here. Dial911 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Edwards[edit]

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

An IMDB listing for a minor actor. I mean that almost literally: the only text is copied from IMDB, and the only source for this BLP is IMDB. Calton | Talk 19:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the only real text looks like it was lifted from IMDB, it could arguably be speedy-deleted as a copyvio. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Considering the lack of other sources, the apparent copyright violation, and that this is a BLP, a speedy deletion seems warranted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article.Accesscrawl (talk) 16:13, 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 18:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Tucholsky[edit]

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

This article is definitely a case of meeting two of the three guidelines of WP:BLP1E.

"... reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."
- The one event that made her notable was being "helped around the bases" in an NCAA Division II softball game 10 years ago. From the sources cited and my google search, I found little other than that game in news coverage about her.
"...person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual."
- Because she was an NCAA Division II (not Division I) student-athlete, she is likely to remain "low profile". This NCAA article confirms such [7]: "...she worked for an orthopedic surgeon before changing careers last year in a new job providing administrative support for the Beaverton (Ore.) Police Department."

Also, ~~she doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH due to not winning any national awards as a student-athlete.~~ EDIT: She did win an ESPY Award in 2008 for the home run, but I wonder if winning an ESPY is enough to meet even WP:GNG if not WP:NCOLLATH. Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - news from CBS News & The Western Journal Joaomufc (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Western Journal is not a reliable source. And most of the sources about Tucholsky are about that one game that made her famous. Yet she has won a national award (ESPY Award). The question: Is her ESPY enough for the WP:GNG? Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is an encyclopedia, not a heart-warming collection of emotionally-impactful stories disguised as biographies of non-notable people. The Best Moment ESPY Award shouldn't meet WP:ANYBIO on its own; and this is fairly clearly WP:BLP1E (with puffery) otherwise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment about the ESPY Award. WP:GNG does not mention awards at all. Best Moment ESPY's also do not fall under "national award[s] (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport)" mentioned in WP:NCOLLATH, because that ESPY Award isn't specific for college athletics. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that there is enough non-political coverage to meet GNG, and a failure to meet WP:NPOL is irrelevant. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Means (politician)[edit]

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

small-town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sourced only to a local history book and two unreliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've updated the rootsweb source to a google books version (Johnson, E. Polk. A History of Kentucky and Kentuckians: The Leaders and Representative Men in Commerce, Industry and Modern Activities. Vol. 3. Lewis Publishing Company, 1912. p1170-1174). I think this is one of the "two unreliable sources", but I think it is actually quite reliable and suggests this individual satisfies ANYBIO. Looking at that entry, Means seems to me to be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, seeing that the original reference was a link to ancestory.com and the link no longer works, I assumed the source was jsut a website and not a book. Even, so I do not see how he passes ANYBIO. He is known for being a politician, so WP:POLITICIAN applies. But even taking the text from the footnote of anybio #2 "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." I am not okay with using "A History of Ashland, Kentucky 1786 - 1954" to meet that requirement. Anyone can write a book about their hometown and sell a few hundred copies, it does not make people mentioned in that book notable. So taking away the local book, we're left with exactly one rs, which is not enough to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of ANYBIO #3, although I should have been more forthright that a state encyclopedia in the cyclopedia era is a weak argument for ANYBIO#3. I still think the subject is suitable for an entry on those grounds, but I'll take a look at other sources over the next week, if I can. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I've updated the page somewhat with a number of sources, including an entry in: Hall, Henry. America's Successful Men of Affairs: The United States at large New York Tribune, 1896, p551-552 Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, already has a biography in a reference book. --RAN (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)!vote by blocked editor--Rusf10 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. GNG requires multiple sources, not one source. And we're certainly not counting the "History of Ashland, Kentucky" book as a source to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editor raises a valid point and was not blocked when he expressed his opinion. gidonb (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, he fails WP:NPOL. He's primarily notable for helping found and being the mayor for a small town in Kentucky. While he does have several pages in a reference biography dedicated to him, I do not think a specific, three-volume local reference biography grants someone notability where it's not otherwise shown to exist. Should we create articles on everyone in this 1200+ page Kentucky-specific reference book? I think that's a clear no. SportingFlyer talk 17:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As also explained above, clearly passes the WP:GNG per available sources. Not all mayors of Ashland do but this one does. I have added a reference myself. gidonb (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is literally mentioned in only one sentence in the book you just added.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not take your "literally mentioned" too literally, as John Means is included in two long sentences. And again you are 100% off. I believe that John Means (politician) stands out above the rest of the mayors of Ashland that you nominated, because he was a regional business leader. Likewise, W. W. Patterson had a notable career. gidonb (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it is two sentences. Either way two sentences, now matter how long they are is not "Significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG. Also you are using the term regional very loosely, he ran the local bank. Banks were different back then, every small town had its own bank, not like today when you have big banks with thousands of branches.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "clear" pass of WP:GNG. What we have is a decent directory article in a three-volume work, as I've noted above, typical of a collection of information from 1912. There's no use in arguing about that source. However, he's notable because of WP:NPOL, and WP:NPOL requires: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. We need more sources to show notability.

What IS clear from the available sources is that his grandfather, Colonel John Means, is notable for being a member of state legislatures in both South Carolina and Ohio. SportingFlyer talk 15:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As these phrases were long, I could use the two sentences in the book to reference three phrases at our end! As a business leader he engaged in a variety of branches, including banking. Means is notable under the WP:GNG. The totality of his endeavours led to WP:SIGCOV. This is different from the "main fame" test such as the one you allude to in the intro. gidonb (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer (talk · contribs) Interesting point about the family! gidonb (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS there was much more further in the book for legacy. We have two very solid books. Time to withdraw this nomination! gidonb (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to WP:BLUDGEON the hell out of this don't you? Even if I wanted to withdraw which I don't, it would just be symbolic since the discussion cannot actually be closed if at least one other person voted delete (which is the case here). Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with WP:WDAFD. The sourcing is still weak and I hope you know that "Report of Superintendent of Public Instruction." is a primary source and only has a trivial mention.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your strategy here and elsewhere seems to be highlighting all that is irrelevant like primary sources or websites, while distracting from what is relevant to WP:N. I just added the 2015 "Kentucky Encyclopedia" that describes John Means' iron empire as one of the companies that "created massive enterprises out of the disorganized and weakened industry that emerged from the Civil War." I will continue to focus on all that is important for Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also awkward to bring WP:BLUDGEON up after arguing non-stop under my opinion! Only one editor here commented under every opinion that did not agree with his own and it wasn't me. BTW people withdraw all the time after referencing becomes solid. Better is checking the sources WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit ridiculous. You should probably both step away from this AfD for civility's sake and allow others to review the sources for notability. SportingFlyer talk 07:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to more opinions! gidonb (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but possibly rename. He seems to have spent more time as an industrialist than a politician. Berrocca Addict (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per above. Clearly meets GNG as an industrialist, politician. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek-e-Labbaik Islam[edit]

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

Non-notable political party. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Google search shows few results, mostly just stating the party's electoral registration. MB190417 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a month-old political party with a non-notable founder and leader and without current activity. Additionally, this seems similar to the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan article which was deleted last year. In both cases, the articles were created about recent groups with no significant mention in Pakistani news media, and the article itself appears to have been generated for the sake of raising the subject's profile. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I don't think the article should be kept, but it seems to be a splinter group of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (I can't find the AfD for that article, it currently exists as Tehreek Labbaik Pakistan).[8] Thus, there is an argument to be made for redirecting/merging to that page. I don't currently see TLI as really significant enough for a redirect to be especially necessary, but redirects are cheap. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_political_parties_in_Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is really annoying when an article being considered for AfD is deleted before the discussion period is over. I could understand if it was a copyvio, but it wasn't. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Restored article. Enigma^msg 04:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete party has no to little coverage with no significant references Jibran1998 (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A political party can be notable for what it does in parliament or what it does outside parliament. Tehreek Labbaik Pakistan, the party from which Tehreek-e-Labbaik Islam split off, seems to have attracted a lot of coverage for its role in sit-ins and demonstrations. Tehreek-e-Labbaik Islam may engage in similar tactics in the future. I still support a merge into the list of parties, but this group may become notable in the future. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Global Warning Tour: Melbourne[edit]

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

Previously deleted at least three times at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Global Warming Tour, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Global Warning Tour (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Warning Tour. WP:G4 tag was removed because sources have reported speculation that WWE may run future events under this name. That's still not enough to pass WP:EVENT. LM2000 (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.LM2000 (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic received substantial coverage over new events in Australia, but articles, which are used as sources in this article talk in detail about the 2002 show. The RS which covered it at that time and continue to discuss it are enough to pass WP:PERSISTENCE, being as they are not just passing mentions. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G4. WP:PERSISTENCE does not apply because all notability for this is inherited from WWE Super Show-Down. It is not notable on it's own as previously established in previous AfD's and nothing has changed. 2001:8003:4FCA:6000:69FC:CAEB:527F:52C0 (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pidzz (talk • contribs)

Note: This vote was put by the creator of the article. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:PERX.LM2000 (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which make it an invalid vote, just one with less perceived weight than others. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The assertion made by Galatz does need to be proven and I do not believe it has been. The IP makes a valid point with regard to inherited notability, and given that there is nothing new otherwise the previous AfD's seem to prevail. But I don't think it warrants G4 deletion as this point did need to be brought here for a new consensus. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I think this should be deleted because it lacks individual notability, I would support including this material on a main PPV article should WWE actually bring the event back as a PPV. This was done for Starrcade#2017, The Great American Bash#2012 and all of those TNA specials that used to be PPVs but aren't anymore. Until then, this should be salted if it ends in delete because this will be the fourth AfD to end like this.LM2000 (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @LM2000: Although I believe GNG has been met, why wouldn't it be able to be merged into Professional wrestling in Australia, similar to Professional wrestling in New Zealand#WWE Road to WrestleMania 22 Tour, as there clearly is enough coverage to warrant that, no? This was the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE SmackDown Road to WrestleMania 22 Tour - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's already a paragraph detailing the event at Professional wrestling in Australia#Foreign tours, I think it would be WP:UNDUE to merge further there. LM2000 (talk) 04:27, 29 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, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Professional wrestling in Australia. Enough coverage to warrant inclusion in that article, but not, IMO, a separate article. Nikki♥311 21:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly established previously as not notable multiple times and there are no new sources correcting already existing information. 150.101.89.150 (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of WP:PERSISTENCE requires correcting information? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 00:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete What part of "Prove it" don't you get, Galatz? No new coverage. Just rehashes of old coverage based 100 percent on Super Show-Down as the 2001:8003 IP said. 2001:44B8:802:1100:30F9:82DC:B850:D703 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This and the above IP's first 2 edits were to this AFD, FWIW. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

You don't need to bring forward new information to prove it has lasting notability. To say it does has no basis. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you do because the only sources over this event have already been rejected in previous AfDs. Lasting notability is impossible when it's not notable to begin with. You need to show what has changed, and without - as has been pointed out - relying on Super Show Down. Addicted4517 (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New sources, not new information. The sources that may mention a 2018 show, focus heavily on the old show, which is exactly what WP:PERSISTENCE is based on. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion doesn't count! 2001:44B8:802:1100:CCE7:1129:BE05:1493 (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: You should note that there is just the one recent source that mentions Global Warning in the article and a generally reliable source as well in Fox Sports. However the article is clearly wrong as it speculates the name of the show, and this has since been proven wrong. You will need to provide other sources to back your assertions which at present appear to be, as the IP above me noted, an opinion by you based on Fox Sports' incorrect speculation. The mention was also passing and minor and therefore does not fulfill the criteria of WP:PERSISTENCE. As I said before, on present notes nothing has changed. You are relying on the notability of Super Show Down. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any use of that speculation. The fact that that multiple sources have discussed in detail the previous event is WP:PERSISTENCE. Not every one needs to be in the article for the sources to support notability. A Google News search, as you can see here [9] shows dozens of RS in December 2017 and June 2018 discussing the previous event in detail. These are more than enough to meet GNG, especially when you combine it with the original sources from the time of the original event, and the build up to the event. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every one of them RELY on Super Show-Down for notability! And at least one lied imputing that this is the first time WWE has been back since, which is absolutely wrong! WWE has been back every year since 2002! Global Warning would be getting NOTHING if it wasn't for Super Show-Down and that's a fact! 2001:8003:4FCA:6000:ED54:902E:C667:52D0 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that this subject has been deleted several times already is more than enough reason to delete it again, especially since the only reason it’s being talked about again after 16 years is because WWE is running an upcoming PPV that happens to be in the same country. The reason anyone at all is even mentioning Global Warning is because of Super Show Down and it has nothing to do with the actual Global Warning show itself. At best I’d suggest including this show on the Super Show Down page. OldSkool01 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Boss (franchise)[edit]

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

The shows listed in this article are all part of the Big Brother (franchise) which already has an article. Most of the information in this article can either be found on the main franchise page or on the individual show pages. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though Bigg Boss is a part of Big Brother (franchise), it has grown to be a franchise of its own. The international adaptions for different regions of the world have 1 or 2 versions per region while India already has 7 adaptions in 7 languages which is expected to increase in the near future. The mentioned article - Big Brother (franchise) does not shed much light on all the Indian versions of the show. Thus, Bigg Boss (franchise) deserves an article to highlight the Indian adaptions of the show with details present in the article already and additional information which is to be added. This article will help the readers to learn about all the adaptions for the Indian edition of the show with ease and giving an option to know more about a particular version if interested. AkshayAnand^Talk! 09:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Big Brother (franchise) article could always be expanded. A good example of something similar is Big Brother (UK TV series) which has 1 main edition, 4 spin-off editions, and 4 [current] companion shows. Yet there is no reason to create a whole franchise article about it there are just mentions in the main article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though expanding the Big Brother (franchise) article is a valid point, many Indians are not familiar with Big Brother. Also, in any other article/discussion, when someone intends to mention Bigg Boss as the Indian version, it only directs the readers to Hindi language version which is not correct as the show exists in 7 languages in India with individual programming. It is more likely that the reader ends up on the article about Hindi version when Bigg Boss is referenced in general and Bigg Boss (franchise), as a franchise is missed out. The importance needs to be given to all language versions and deleting this article might pull attention to the Hindi version only. AkshayAnand^Talk! 09:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current article could always be redirected to the section that was expanded on the Big Brother (franchise) article which would take care of your raised issues. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is easier said than done. Redirecting to an elaborate article about the whole Big Brother franchise with section about Indian version will either enforce minimizing of information provided in the current article to stay at par with the details mentioned in the Big Brother franchise article. (If you compare the summary tables, the details mentioned in the current article are much more accurate and descriptive with numerous sources.) Or, expanding a section in the Big Brother franchise article with these details would make the already big article even bigger and it will also render only Bigg Boss as an important adaption as it will have more details compared to other versions. I strongly feel this article will serve its purpose and should not be deleted. AkshayAnand^Talk! 04:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though Bigg Boss is a part of Big Brother (franchise), it has grown to be a franchise of its own in India. It is necessary to showcase a huge reality television been in Top since years all to be in an article.--Made In IN (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom there is no reason for Bigg Boss to have a franchise page because it is part of the Big Brother franchise. A disambiguate page would be more preferable. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 05:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Bigg Boss.
1. It is not a franchise; it's part of the Big Brother franchise, which has numerous different series-specific names in various countries and languages.
2. The article presently at the misnomer Bigg Boss (franchise) is the direct equivalent of Big Brother (UK TV series) – it's the national-level article on a number of closely-related TV shows, some of which have their own spinoff articles.
3. The page presently at Bigg Boss should be Big Boss (Hindi TV series); giving it the "Bigg Boss" title by itself is a PoV problem has well as a WP:CONSISTENCY failure, in that it's showing favoritism to Hindi over the Bangla, Marathi, Telugu, etc. editions.
4. See also Talk:Bigg Boss#Requested move 21 June 2018, one in a series of RMs to move misnamed articles in the Big Brother/Bigg Boss/etc. franchise to properly disambiguated names (e.g. Bigg Boss Tamil → Bigg Boss (Tamil TV series), because none of the shows are actually titled anything like Big Boss Tamil).

In short, this should be speedily closed as a WP:RM matter that's been mis-filed in AfD. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho, AkshayAnand, Made In IN, and Alucard 16: Pinging previous respondents. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll respond but my internet is currently down until at least later tonight so it may be a bit. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SMcCandlish: I disagree with the suggestion to move. The thing with the Big Brother UK articles is that the show started and spawned several spin-ofs which is what the article covers. Imagine if the UK created a version of Big Brother for each language spoken in the country and then a Wikipedia article was created to cover each language. That article would be treating it as a franchise about the different language shows not a parent show and its spin-off's. That's also what this article is doing which brings me back to my original point that Big Brother already has a franchise page. The U.S. version doesn't have its own franchise page just because a spanish version and English version aired there. Similarly, Canada doesn't have it's own franchise page because they aired two versions in the French language (Big Brother (Quebec TV series) and Loft Story (Canadian TV series))and one in the English language. I suggest that the content could be merged into the Big Brother (franchise) page and this article redirected. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  We need not split hairs that fine. If tomorrow sees the launch of Welsh, Scots, [Scottish] Gaelic, Irish [Gaelic] (in Northern Ireland, part of the UK), Manx [Gaelic], and Cornish editions of the UK Big Brother, and they each have their own articles, they'd still be mentioned WP:SUMMARY-style at Big Brother (UK TV series), exactly like it presently covers summaries of the extant spin-offs, and exactly as the page presently at Bigg Boss (franchise) covers the variant Indian editions. The important points to me are a) some additional UK shows in other languages wouldn't magically make it a stand-alone franchise; b) the historical course taken to get to there being more than one UK edition (or Indian editions) doesn't dictate how we structure, name, and categorize the articles; and c) consistency is more helpful for readers that trying to use trickery in titling, page-splitting, article-creation-and-deletion, and – importantly – blatant original research in deciding to redefine "franchise" on the fly to mean something new ... all just to "model" the show relationships in an overly clever way that no one is going to understand but the editors who invented it out of thin air. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also for the record based on the above reasons I purposefully filed this as an Afd so please stop saying that this was a misfiled RM. I know the difference between an Afd and an RM. Thanks!! TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I wasn't implying anything about your intent. I'm making a "which process will expediently produce a useful outcome?" point. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Will be !voting in some detail, soon.....Please relist∯WBG^converse 13:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is sufficiently different from the Big Brother (franchise) article. No opinion on a move to Bigg Boss but that can/should be done by WP:RM anyhow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. It'll also be good to be able to move this to "Bigg Boss". Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki and Paintspot: Bigg Boss is NOT "significantly different" from the Big Brother (franchise) the overall purpose of the game is EXACTLY the same and most of the format is similar. Of course there may be small differences in the independent country franchise but the only thing different is the name. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: do you still plan on !voting? (Not pushing you to just a reminder in case you forgot as the relist is approaching the end tomorrow.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with a caveat that the article probably should focus more on the bank and not the holding company. So Why 18:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Premier Bancorp[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Just another run of the mill local bank. Google searches turn up the usual stock listings (Reuters, Bloomberg, Yahoo, etc.) and GNews turns up a bunch of buy/sell/hold recommendations, but nothing significant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep since the nominator misrepresents the article topic. Bank is NASDAQ WP:LISTED and part of the S&P 600. Clearly notable per WP:LISTED. Of course there are buy sell hold recommendations because various independent analysts who track the company. That further proves notability. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the S&P 600 contains (roughly) companies 901-1500 on the NYSE/NASDAQ. While I assume most of them are notable, I'm not immediately ready to agree that all of them are (as would being on the S&P 500). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:LISTED states explicitly: Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. I.e. just being listed is not a sufficient argument to keep the article. It does go on to say that for most listed companies, notability can usually be established by finding other reliable significant sources, but not always. If anyone can provide the sources for this article, I'm happy to change my opinion, but until I see them, I don't assume they exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find much of anything other than acquisition reports. Press releases such as [10] are of no help. That might be unavoidable for bank articles; U.S. Bancorp and San Diego County Credit Union do very little beyond that, and Fifth Third Bank gets a "Controversies" section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor whose username is Z0 11:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per Power's and Wikidan's persuasive reasoning. LPac's vote seems to be likely devoid of much/any merit.∯WBG^converse 13:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Holding companies exist for principally legal and tax purposes, and for this reason they are rarely independently notable. There are exceptions! -The Gnome (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pacific Premier Bank redirects here. Individual retail banking locations simply aren't discussed very frequently, though the "enterprise value" is a lot higher than a similarly-sized fast-food chain. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Analyst reports

This 28 September 2015 article^archive.is from StreetInsider about a Piper Jaffray analyst report notes:

Piper Jaffray initiates coverage on Pacific Premier Bancorp (NASDAQ: PPBI) with a Overweight rating and a price target of $25.00.
Analyst Matthew Clark commented, "We initiate coverage of PPBI with an Overweight rating and $25 target based on double-digit growth prospects and operating leverage that should allow EPS to grow by 12-25% annually through 2017. The end result should be a relatively stable margin, a diverse mix on both sides of the balance sheet, and an increasingly attractive Southern California franchise. A disciplined approach to acquisitions should also help Pacific Premier supplement its strong loan growth and leverage its current expense base."

This 1 May 2018 article^archive.is from StreetInsider about a Piper Jaffray analyst report notes:

Piper Jaffray lowered its price target on Pacific Premier Bancorp (NASDAQ: PPBI) to $50.00 (from $55.00) while maintaining a Overweight rating.
Analyst Matt Clark continues to like the company citing the double-digit earnings growth potential, industry leading profitability, disciplined M&A strategy and scarcity value that is being in southern California according to a late day research note. The analyst cuts his price target on lowered EPS estimates.

This 1 May 2017 article^archive.is from StreetInsider about an FBR Capital Markets analyst report notes:

FBR Capital upgraded Pacific Premier Bancorp (NASDAQ: PPBI) from Market Perform to Outperform with a price target of $44.00 (from $40.00).
Analyst Bob Ramsey noted the company posted annualized organic loan growth of 18% and is growing EPS north of 20%. In addition, it has a well-diversified loan book, strong core deposit base, and good profitability, the analyst said.

This 26 July 2017^archive.is article from StreetInsider about a Stephens Inc. analyst report notes:

Stephens downgraded Pacific Premier Bancorp (NASDAQ: PPBI) from Overweight to Equal Weight.
Analyst Tyler Stafford cites the valuation, softness in EPS and low visibility for the downgrades.

Some of the analyst reports mentioned above are listed at https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/PPBI/price-target/ under a paywall^WebCite:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
2/13/2018	Piper Jaffray Companies	Set Price Target	Buy	$55.00	Low	Paywall link
2/6/2018	Stephens	Reiterated Rating	Hold	$45.00	Low	Paywall link
6/28/2017	Keefe, Bruyette & Woods	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$42.00	Medium	Paywall link
5/1/2017	FBR & Co	Upgrade	Market Perform ➝ Outperform	$40.00 ➝ $44.00	Medium	Paywall link
1/6/2017	FIG Partners	Upgrade	Market-Perform ➝ Outperform	N/A		Paywall link

The analyst reports are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.

Sources about acquisitions

Here are more sources about the acquisitions that I am not using to establish notability but am including here so interested editors can use them to source and expand the article:

Gruszecki, Debra (2015-10-05). "Irvine's Pacific Premier Bancorp to buy Riverside-based Security Bank for $118.9 million". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
The article notes:

Irvine-based Pacific Premier Bancorp has signed an agreement to acquire the holding company of Riverside’s Security Bank of California, along with its branches in Riverside, Orange and San Bernardino counties.
...
Acquiring Security Bank, with $734 million in total assets and $654 million in total deposits as of Aug. 31, will drive Pacific Premier’s total assets to $3.4 billion, its total loans outstanding to $2.6 billion and its total deposits to $2.8 billion.
Usheroff, Marni (2014-10-22). "Newport bank bought for $71.5 million". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
The article notes:

Pacific Premier Bancorp Inc. of Irvine announced Wednesday it has agreed to buy Newport Beach-based Independence Bank for $71.5 million.
Independence, a community bank, had $426.2 million in total assets as of Sept. 30 and six branches in Orange and Riverside Counties.
Pacific Premier Bancorp, the holding company for Pacific Premier Bank, had $2 billion in assets at the end of the same period. One of the largest banks based in Orange County, Pacific Premier is a business bank with 13 branches spread through much of Southern California.
Wichner, David (2018-06-20). "Bank of Tucson sold, name will change". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
The article notes:

Bank of Tucson will soon have a new owner and its name will disappear as its parent company, Los Angeles-based Grandpoint Bank, is acquired by a California bank holding company.
In a deal expected to close July 1, Pacific Premier Bancorp, a publicly traded company based in Irvine, California, is buying Grandpoint Bank’s parent company, Grandpoint Capital Inc., in a stock transaction worth $641 million.
...
Pacific Premier has about $8 billion in assets, with more than 30 offices in California and one in Las Vegas.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pacific Premier Bancorp to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The holding company angle is irrelevant, as we don't have an article on the bank. The publicly traded entity is the holding company (which just holds the bank) - if we were to have an article on both, I would've swung for a merge (as this is not Alphabet Inc. size turf). The company in question has a market cap of 1.75 Billion - which is not huge, but not tiny either. Looking at coverage - it is, as a public entity for many years (and as a bank), covered by analysts for several years - both in analyst reports (which then get regurgiatated by the media) and in directories of public companies such as [11][12].Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and old corporation. Dial911 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK street choirs[edit]

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

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

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

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

Another WP:LINKFARM masquerading as a list with no actual articles. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and fails WP:LISTN as the main subject UK street choirs does not have a page. The article creator also seems to have a WP:COI. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands it's just a WP:LINKFARM and as a list topic it's too vague. What are the inclusion criteria? The article says it's a list of choirs in the "Campaign Choirs Network" but we don't usually have pages which are in effect an organisation's membership list, and if that criterion is removed we'd end up with a list which could contain every street choir that's ever existed in the UK. Neiltonks (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Do Not Delete~~ as this is a valid subject which can be enlarged to cover choirs all over Europe. As such it is a valid subject for discussion and hopefully amplification, particularly the international aspect of inter-choir contacts which is an important and interesting cultural phenomena. moxford (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)— moxford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum or a means to discuss subjects valid or otherwise, that is more the role of social media or specialised web sites. Subjects have to meet notability requirements and other guidelines and policies. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rework. A list of British choirs would satisfy LISTN. This, for example, has a list of youth choirs. This (cited by various books) has a list of choirs on the Net. We have a category "British choirs" that contains in excess of a hundred articles. So I advise moving this to List of British choirs, and overwrite the present contents with a list of the articles in our category, which are presumably notable. James500 (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list is a list of street choirs formed specifically to protest in the streets at various meetings and political rallies, the members are not selected for their singing capabilities I believe. The aim is not to entertain as a traditional choir would. It would make little sense to have these choirs in the same list as Pontarddulais Male Choir or The Bach Choir for exemple. None of them are bluelinked and the length of a list of British choirs without limiting it to bluelinked articles would be unmanageable and should IMHO be limited as per the first case in WP:CSC. The list was created by a use who is a volunteer for Campaign Choirs Network to list their members. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per all above.∯WBG^converse 13:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN and fails WP:EL with a link farm in the body of the article. Don't know why this needed to go to a relist, the only keep advanced no policy based rationale. SpinningSpark 19:04, 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. So Why 18:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Roman[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E scenario. There is coverage about him, but it all relates to him having some unclear position in the Trump campaign. Being appointed a special assistant to the president does not confer notability, especially when in an all but undefined position, and if you read the Politico piece, it more discusses his role on the campaign than anything else (hence the BLP1E issue). TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may in fact be enough WP:SIGCOV to keep this one. I added a couple of INDEPTH articles about him to the page, and here is a gNews search on "Mike Roman" + Trump [13]. Keywords are useful since "Mike Roman" turns out to be the name of a number of other men who are in the news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I did that too. 100% a case of BLP1E. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - I'd like to see an intro that actually says who he is and what his profession actually is. Deb (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding material about who is is and what he does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for being campaign operatives, but this is not sourced well enough to move him from WP:BLP1E into ten-year test-passing notability. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he attains a stronger notability claim, but nothing present here is convincing evidence of permanent notability as of yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think articles like The mysterious oppo researcher working in the White House lawyer's office in Politico this spring put him over the top. Do note that he doesn't give interviews, doesn't want to be in the papers, and that the Trump administration won't talk about him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per TonyBallioni.Clear-cut BLP1E.And, our job is not to shine spotlight on person(s) who have chosen to evade coverage by altering (lowering) our inclusion-requirements.That's nonsense.∯WBG^converse 13:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't WP:BLP1E. There's coverage of his work for the Koch's, his work for the Trump campaign, and his job at the White House.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that his activities have covered in books at least as far back as the 2004 Bush campaign. Have added a book and a scholarly article, each taking a close look at a single event in his career as a Party operative, both instances related to his blog, a blog that was not on the page when I began editing this morning. We may still missing a lot of coverage of his pre-Trump career. It is understandable that Nom and many of the editors above have not found sources; Mike Roman is a frustratingly common name. It's just the sort of name an oppo research might make up if he didn't want to come up in google searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN. Updated article; Politico says he left the White House job in April. I'm out of time, even though I have not finished adding books and scholarly articles that already exist. After a couple of hours googling him, my WP:CRYSTAL ball tells me that more books and journal articles will appear as scholars and journalists chew their way through the event-rich turf of the Trump administration. But I think that there is now more than enough WP:SIGCOV published over the course of 2 decades (albeit, he didn't begin get INDEPTH until the 2004 Bush campaign.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough sources here to support an article. Just because he doesn't give interviews and generally stays out of the limelight doesn't mean we can't have an article on him. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That actually is what that means, because there isn’t enough sourcing despite claims otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the 2016 Ben Jacobs (journalist) story in The Guardian: Controversial Republican Mike Roman to run Donald Trump's 'election protection' , it quotes Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California, Irvine, : “It was one of the most retold stories on Fox News and the right for years and took on almost mythical status as evidence of thuggery by Democrats to harm the voting process.” on a 2004 Campaign strategy by Roman that is also explored in a book by Hansen already on the page. The argument that this was BLP1E does not wash, bu the argument that there is inadequate coverage is odd given that Roman has gotten WP:SIGCOV in books, academic journals, and newspapers since 2004. E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 18:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Private sector involvement[edit]

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

The article appears to be WP:OR. It cites no general discussion of what the term 'private sector involvement' means, but instead cherry-picks sources in order to describe aspects of the Greek government-debt crisis: a subject already more than adequately described in its own article. It also cites no sources whatsoever for much of its content. I have no doubt that plenty of sources using the phrase 'private sector involvement' could be found, but without sources which meaningfully define the term, rather than just using it in passing, an encyclopaedic article not reliant on synthesis seems impossible, and I very much doubt that any clear definition exists, given the many contexts in which the phrase can be used. Governments frequently interact with the private sector, but basing an article about a particular type of 'involvement' cannot be justified based on a particular Wikipedia contributor's own analysis. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 21:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 21:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 21:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because there is no one standing behind the nomination. We are dupes if we use our time to consider anonymous I.P. editors' AFD proposals. Why the hell could not someone use their Wikipedia account, which they surely have. I disagree with User:Ansh666 for facilitating this; they should nominate it themself if they agree, otherwise they should not burden the rest of us. This kind of thing is ripe for malicious abuse; there is a reason why I.P.s are not allowed to open AFDs. And whatever effort the rest of us put in will presumably not lead to any learning on the part of the long-gone I.P. --Doncram (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely ridiculous, there's no difference between an IP and a logged-in editor here (and not everyone has an account, surprise). Do you have anything to say on the substance on the nomination, or do you just feel like making completely irrelevant comments today? ansh 666 01:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, if you wish to propose a change to Wikipedia policy concerning the right of unregistered contributors to nominate articles for deletion, do so, at an appropriate place. Meanwhile, per the process clearly described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, this nomination is entirely legitimate, and your comments are entirely off-topic. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, both your !vote and then your statement below that even responding to IP editors is pointless are disturbing and completely irrelevant. You might as well argue that we scrap AfC since that's just registered users enabling IP editors altering wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on account of subject's substantial and independent notability. Notability is not temporary: Once a topic has been the subject of significant coverage in accordance with the general notability guidelines, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. PSI has been on the front pages in all European media, as well as elsewhere, and the main subject of TV and online reports, during the Grexit-crisis years (they're probably not over the crisis, still) when the greatest state-debt write off in financial history occurred. The term itself and the initials PSI were around for a very long time and, after the Euro-crisis, have been used routinely in reports, articles, and discussions about state debt, not just of Eurozone countries but everywhere. I'll give some examples and let others dig up other specifico ones.

Random sample of online stuff: "Private Sector Involvement in Financial Crisis Resolution: Definition, Measurement, and Implementation", Center for Global Development, 2002; "Making Sense of PSI: On the role of the private sector in sovereign debt crises", Global Financial and Monetary Governance conference, 2006 ; "Private sector involvement: From (good) theory to (bad) practice", ECB, 2011; "Two lessons from the Greek crisis", CEPR, 2012; "Greek lessons for the eurozone", Financial Times, 2012; "Sovereign Debt Restructuring - Recent Developments and Implications", IMF, 2013; "To swap or not to swap? Greece issues 5 new bonds", Brookings, 2017; etc. -The Gnome (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I'm the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

We already know that the Greek government-debt crisis is a notable subject: we have an article on it. To justify this article you need to demonstrate that 'private sector involvement' is a topic in of itself. Which requires sources which discuss it in general, and tell us what it is, rather than use it in passing. The problem is that Google finds all sorts of usages of the three words, in all sorts of contexts, making the subject matter of this article entirely ambiguous - you yourself have already pointed this out in the article. You go on to assert that the term "has come to mostly signify the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs" but provide no source whatsoever to back this claim up. And without such a source, the entire premise of the article - that the three words have some sort of specific meaning beyond the umpteen contexts in which it could be used - doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If there really is some sort of core subject matter concerning "Private Sector Involvement in Financial Crisis Resolution" or whatever, that isn't already covered in existing articles, it clearly needs a better title, a proper definition, and proper sourcing so it isn't based around your personal opinions of what the subject matter is. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a waste of legitimate editors' time to reply to an anonymous I.P. editor in any deletion proceeding. They should not be allowed to participate, much less to open a deletion proceeding. --Doncram (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a waste of legitimate editors' time to use AFD discussions as a soapbox for topics not under consideration. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of your claims here are baseless, 86.147.197.65. The Greek crisis brought tremendous publicity to an already existing term. From then on, and since Eurozone is still in crisis (e.e. see Italy), the term is still with us. The topic, as evidenced in the sources already here, is reported and discussed extensively, as it is, verbatim, in the title. It is already part of the financial lexicon. But I will let other contributors decide, after looking up the web themselves. Here, for instance, IMF discusses PSI, using both the full term and the initials extensively. A myriad, literally, of such instances. -The Gnome (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You've found an article from the IMF which discusses 'A Framework for Private Sector Involvement in Crisis Resolution', and goes on to use 'private sector involvement' as shorthand internally. Whoop-de-do! If it is actually true that Private Sector Involvement is a part of the 'financial lexicon', find a source that says so. And then write an article that actually describes, based directly on cited sources, what exactly the topic is. And then find a title that doesn't read like a half-finished sentence. Because as the article stands, there is precisely nothing to prevent someone removing your unsourced assertions that the three word-term "has come to mostly signify the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs", and transforming it into an article on private sector involvement in the U.K. National Health Service. Or private sector involvement in the U.S. prison system. Or private sector involvement in the supply of ballpoint pens to Uzbekistani tax inspectors. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you wish to rebut the objections to this article, you must address the central point. These words are used in several different meanings to refer to entirely different topics. That's not how Wikipedia defines article topics and content. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This article needs to be turned into a disambiguation page" is not a valid argument for deletion. We do have disambiguation pages to deal with precisely the sort of scenario you assert to be the case here. Disambiguation does not involve deletion. James500 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a collation of unrelated topics that share some or all of the words of the title. It's also poorly sourced and the current content is garbled. Any valid content should go into the articles on the subject of that content, not taped together into this pointless page. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A search for "private sector involvement"+psi in GBooks does seem to indicate that PSI is a notable topic. This source says that PSI is "a generic term" that means "privatization in part". That is plainly a notable concept that should have an article. In any event, this nomination violates ATD, PRESERVE and R. Even if, for the sake of argument, this topic wasn't independently notable, or we had a duplicate article (I haven't checked to see if there is one, though I'd be suprised if we didn't have something on things like PFI etc), we would still need the page name for redirection (or disambiguation if anyone can identify alternative meanings) and the content for merger. Which means this nomination is really just yet another merger proposal taking place in the wrong forum. So I suggest a procedural close and send them to the correct forum if they can identify a redirect/merger target. This is articles for deletion, not articles for discussion. And I don't think that seven day straw poll is an appropriate way to handle this. P. S. We can't "delete and merge" as SPECIFICO suggests. See WP:CWW and the attribution requirements of the creative commons license we use. James500 (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Further, it is not a valid objection that the page name uses a name given to the topic by reliable sources which have named that topic in the canonical manner . Rightly or wrongly, reliable sources often name topics in the canonical manner. If such a name is the WP:COMMONNAME we can use it, and may have to use it, even if that name seems silly to us. PSI is nothing compared to some of the completely absurd names of certain topics that we are now well and truly stuck with because of the popularity this naming convention. James500 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving the point I made in the original deletion nomination. The first item shown in the Google search you link is (for me anyway) about "The Effects of Private Sector Involvement (PSI) in Providing Quality Management and Resources Allocation for Public Housing Estates in HongKong", and the second is "Private Sector Involvement in Urban Solid Waste Collection". And the second link you provide is to a discussion on privatisation, not on "the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs", the subject the article creator asserts is the article's actual topic. Which demonstrates quite clearly why an article on a three-word phrase isn't viable. It simply has too many different meanings, in too many different contexts. As for merging, the only sourced content in the article which relates to the subject the article creator states that the article is about is already covered in the article on the Greek government-debt crisis. There is nothing beyond WP:OR which is worth merging. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange how every piece of text that does not fit our agenda, despite the text being fully sourced and attributed, is suddenly original work. But perhaps not so strange.

-The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can tell us then whether these sources (on "Quality Management and Resources Allocation for Public Housing Estates in HongKong" and on "Urban Solid Waste Collection") are suitable for inclusion in the article? Because if they are, your entirely unsourced assertion that "the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs" is the primary meaning of the three words needs to be removed, and the article turned into a ragbag collection of whatever we can find which uses the phrase. Make your mind up.86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to IP editor: (1) If an expression has more than one meaning, that does not result in deletion. It results in a separate article for each of those meanings, plus a disambiguation page. The primary topic, if there is one, goes at PSI with a hatnote. If not, the dab page goes there. (2) It is perfectly possible to have a viable article on a three word phrase. In fact, we have many viable articles on one word phrases such as Banana. Or perhaps you think that page name is not long enough? (3) Who says that "the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs" is not a form of "privatisation in part" within the meaning of the CRC source and on what basis? What basis is there for saying that one is not a sub topic of the other? It is not immediately obvious to me that the first is not just an example of the second. In which case we could potentially put them in the same article on the parent topic. (4) We absolutely can have an article about "privatisation in part". Indeed we already have something that looks suspiciously like that at Public-private partnership. The question that really needs to be answered here first is whether PPP and PSI are in fact synonyms for the same thing. The CRC source, for example, seems to perhaps suggest they might be. The passage of our article that distinguishes them lacks inline citations. I'm not sure. I would have to conduct a minute examination of the sources to decide, which is not something that should be done in a seven day AfD. (5) This nomination looks like WP:DEMOLISH. James500 (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Public-private partnership" is somewhat of a defined term and refers to financing structures that share broad commonalities. "Private Sector Involvement" is just 3 English words that have no such common usage and as individual words can be combined and interpreted in hundreds of diverse meanings. That's why they can't be used as a title or subject for a single article on WP. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current topic is like Music to my ears -- common phrase with a dozen different meanings. But WP is not a dictionary. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:DEMOLISH: "the last thing Wikipedia needs is another Jerry built home on a hillside ready to collapse at the first sign of rain". Before one builds a house, one needs to decide its purpose. Likewise, with an article one needs to decide on a topic first, and then (after collecting the necessary material to clarify what the topic is, and to demonstrate that the topic meets notability requirements) to create the article, citing the sources which demonstrate its claim to notability as a new subject. And to decide on the best title. What James500 is proposing seems to be based on the premise that one should select the title first, and then see how many different topics (which may or may not be notable, and may or may not already be covered in other articles) can be crammed into it. Encyclopaedias are built around topics, not strings of words. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I have yet to see a convincing demonstration of your claims. All I have seen so far is assertion and just pointing at sources. Please go through the sources one at a time and explain precisely what you think the differences between them are. I have produced a source (the CRC Press book) with a definition that is perfectly good for our purposes. The burden is now on you to demonstrate the others are different. I fail to see how they are. If you have done WP:BEFORE, you should be able to tell me. (2) The fact that a particular topic does not have a universally accepted definition does not preclude us from having an article on it. There are many such topics that are so prominent that we cannot possibly avoid having articles on them. I have lost count of the times when a textbook has told me that the definition of some important term of art is question unsettled. This is not an argument for merger, let alone deletion. Indeed we may need an article precisely in order to document the dispute over the definition of a term of art, and the arguments that have been made. James500 (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing whatsoever in the AFD process that specifies that the nominator has to prove that subjects the nominated article claims not to be discussing don't themselves meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. And nobody so far has produced any definition, textbook or otherwise, on any 'term of art' that meets the definition in the article we are discussing. In fact the CRC Press book directly contradicts it, suggesting that the article we are discussing here (which is an article, not a disambiguation page for all sorts of topics which might possibly be described using the words 'private sector involvement') is not merely unsourced, but entirely wrong. Perhaps rather than arguing with me, your time might be better employed trying to sort out with The Gnome exactly what it is that this article is supposed to be about. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, as the creator of the contested article, I have said enough in defending the subject's independent and verifiable notability. Best for me to withdraw and simply watch the community decide on the AfD. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "This is a collation of unrelated topics that share some or all of the words of the title" --Lauranos (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bits of text leakage plugged and sources added. -The Gnome (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us which (if any) of the new sources you have cited directly states that the term 'private sector involvement' "has come to mostly signify the private sector's participation in the losses taken in cases of sovereign debt write downs"? And can you explain why such sources should be used to define the subject matter of this article, rather than the entirely contrary definition ("a generic term describing the relationship formed between the private sector and public bodies often with the aim of introducing private sector resources and/or expertise in order to help provide and deliver public sector assets and services") found in the source linked earlier? [14] Because until this issue is settled, it is entirely unclear what the topic of this article is, since those supporting it appear not to be able to agree over this fundamental issue. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The contested article already contains the information that the term has been around for a long time, long before the Grexit crisis broke, and that it has subsequently come to mean what the sourced definitions are saying.

(2) Importantly, the definition you cited above is not "contrary" at all. It's simply on a different subject, i.e. it refers to the the participation of the private sector in projects and agencies that typically are state affairs. Note that this is already covered in the contested article, where the point is explicitly made about the difference between "PSI" and "PPP". Banding about false words such as "contrary" confuses the discussion. Please, let's all be careful in terminology.

(3) Now about the definition of "PSI" in the contested article that seems to bother you so much: It is a simple and straightforward paraphrasing of the various definitions provided in the cited texts. There's a plethora of sources available, of course, but we best avoid citation overkill. In case that only a verbatim definition would be satisfactory, we could comfortably use the definition provided by any one of the numerous sources, which offer essentially paraphrases of the exact same notion. We could use, for instance, what the ECB gives us, i.e. "private sector involvement refers, broadly speaking, to the contributions or efforts of private sector creditors to the crisis resolution process; specifically, it means that the private sector shares some of the costs of a financial crisis by incurring itself financial losses."(Source, 2005) Which tempts me to ask, "Now, what did I just say?"

There are alternatives, of course, e.g. PSI denotes "any kind of efforts and contributions of the private sector in a context of sovereign financial distress," (Source, 2006) all conveying the same notion with different words. Hope it's entirely clear now. -The Gnome (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is entirely clear is that, as I noted in the original deletion nomination, the term 'private sector involvement' is used in all sorts of contexts, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with 'crisis resolution'. Being able to cherry-pick sources that use the term in one context is no evidence whatsoever that this is the way the term is 'mostly' used. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not even close. Wrong, still. The term and the meaning are quite specific, for a long time now. The sources, in abundance, are quite conclusive; yet you choose to ignore them. I'm wasting my time quoting verbatim what the sources state. Carry on on your own.-The Gnome (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If 'The term and the meaning are quite specific, for a long time now', why does the source James500 cited give an entirely different definition? 86.147.197.65 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the term, as already explicitly detailed in the article, meant also what the other definition was about, yet with the advent of the Eurozone crisis, it has come to mean, as conclusively justified by sources, "the contributions or efforts of private sector creditors to the crisis resolution process" and "specifically, that the private sector shares some of the costs of a financial crisis by incurring itself financial losses." Link provided above. Terms and words change meanings, with one meaning often being dominant according to the times. Such is the case with PSI. (Any clearer than this and it will be radiant.

) -The Gnome (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this subject actually independently notable? Ignoring for the moment the question of whether the term 'private sector involvement' is (as the author of the article claims) generally used as shorthand for 'private sector involvement in sovereign debt writedowns' or words to that effect, one might still ask whether an article on that specific subject is actually justified under Wikipedia policy. There is already an article on government debt, along with (as already noted) one on the Greek government-debt crisis, which is the only example actually discussed in the article under discussion here. Wikipedia is not, per policy, a dictionary, and accordingly, it is divided into independent subjects, rather than into terms, and I would suggest that logically 'private sector involvement in sovereign debt writedowns' isn't a subject independent of 'government debt', and is instead a subtopic, properly discussed in context. Indeed, separating the discussion of 'private sector involvement' from the broader subject can only do the reader (whom this encyclopaedia is supposed to serve) a disservice. Subject matter should be grouped as necessary to serve the interests of the reader, and not subdivided merely to increase the article count. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: "I don't like it!" Fair enough. -The Gnome (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly there is plenty on Private Sector Involvement as an overarching term. So sheer notability isn't going to function as grounds for deletion. Other mooted grounds for deletion include Dic Def - which there is clearly more than; duplicative to other entries, which is significantly true, especially to Public-Private partnership, but not entirely and certainly there is enormous grounds not to overlap with use of different examples; and so vague as to make more sense as a disambig than a standalone entry. This latter grounds probably makes the most sense - but there is enough specific content that relates to specifically this phrase as to make it justifiable for an article. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify whether you are suggesting that the article should cover any subject described as 'Private Sector Involvement', or only the subject matter that The Gnome says is described by the term, i.e. 'private sector involvement in sovereign debt writedowns'? 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take it to mean, roughly, what the first line is "Private sector involvement (PSI) refers to the participation of the private sector in projects of the government.". If The Gnome feels it is primarily used in one sense and prefers to focus on that he can, but other editors can obviously expand to cover the broader scope. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Private sector#Government involvement - this is really just a dictionary article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
Rename to more accurate title - see below thread.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If every term that had a definition was "just a dictionary item" we would not have separate articles, for example, on "collateralized debt obligation" but instead just a section under "Debt", not an article for "foreign direct investment" but a section under "Investment", no article for "new public management" but a section under "public service", and so on. Subjects that possess independent notability of their own typically merit an article in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A collateralized debt obligation is a specific product, a foreign direct investment is a specific type of investment, and new public management is a specific approach. Private sector involvement can mean a wide variety of things to a reader, depending on the industry - the category seems overly broad, and that's why I think of it more as a constructed dictionary term. My 2 cents. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "private sector involvement" has come to denote something quite specific, and it is what the article provides as definition: The participation of the private sector in the write downs of sovereign debt in instances of haircut. This can be paraphrased any way one wants (the cited texts provide such paraphrasing) but this meaning is what one finds in a myriad of sources, online and offline.

Terms change, terms die, and terms get born all the time. The words "private sector involvement" used to be about something bland, without much independent importance. Yet, through the advent of the Eurozone crisis and the subsequent bail-ins the term has verifiably acquired a very strong, specific, independent presence. -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, but as far as I can see there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that states that articles can only be based on the latest definition of a term, and that sources using a phrase differently are somehow no longer valid. And frankly the whole argument about 'what the term means' really only reinforces the argument that this is a dictionary definition of a term, rather than an article about a subject. What I can't understand, if this is really about a specific subject, is why you chose to describe it with an ambiguous term in the first place, and then spend most of the article arguing about what it means. A clearer title (e.g. 'Private sector involvement in sovereign debt write downs' or something similar) would have avoided all of the ambiguity, and most of the discussion here. Though it might well have illustrated just how little discussion of the subject matter there really is in the article. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then, let me help with the relevant Wikipedia policy. The term in question has the meaning you find "clearer", i.e. "the participation of the private sector in the write downs of sovereign debt in instances of haircut." Where do we get this definition? From the sources extant in abundance. How do we assign this specific meaning, which is a relatively new one? Because the sources, again, demonstrate that this is the prevalent, current use - by far. The policies are WP:V on the basis of WP:RS. We are guided by the sources that have made the definition as clear as it comes. You want to see it, great; you do not want to see it, no problem whatsoever. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. By the way, if we have moved on to where the article needs improvement (something I avoided on purpose so far, after the AfD began), then it's progress. If the article contains indeed "little discussion on the subject matter," this can be fixed. Need I remind anyone that deletion is not clean up? -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my merge vote and changed it to rename. I was going by the fact that this is a broad term, and not based on one specific meaning of the term for the purposes of the article. I agree with user:86.147.197.65 that a more specific and accurate title would serve us better. When I Google "private sector involvement", with the quotes, the third result (second not counting this article) discusses a completely different meaning of private sector involvement - in healthcare. [[15]] A couple of links below that is a discussion of private sector involvement in fighting tropical diseases. [[16]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note : I added text & sources, also removed redundant text and reorganized article, per suggestions tabled in this AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article still makes the demonstrably-false claim that the term private sector involvement "has come to signify" only one thing. It takes nothing more than a simple Google search for use of the term in the last year to disprove this ridiculous and entirely unnecessary assertion, which it appears is only there to justify the use of jargon as a title, rather than actually serving the interests of the readership, who one might assume would prefer article titles to make their subject matter clear. If this article isn't deleted, I intend to initiate the Wikipedia:Requested moves procedure, since it appears to be the only way to resolve this. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For some weird but not unexpected reason, you seem dead set against this article. As far as I'm concerned, do your worst: I have not seen a more blatant case of "I just don't like it!" so far in Wikipedia. Only a few hours after I made the above-announced improvements to the article, you tagged for "clarification needed" a term, "haircut", because per your edit summary, we're not supposed to use "unexplained jargon". Yet, the term in the text had a direct link to the relevant Wikipedia article! (Here 'tis again: "Haircut (finance)"). No need to warn us about your future actions; I'm rather certain you will continue in your endeavors. Such negative passion is a wonder to behold but not to admire. Carry on, then. -The Gnome (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I should underline your contempt for the consensus-achieving process, which you exhibit by warning us so arrogantly that taking this "issue" elsewhere, "appears to be the only way to resolve this". In other words, if the consensus of this AfD does not meet your expectations, the consensus shall in the wrong and you, the lonely paladin of truth, will take it elsewhere. Bravo. -The Gnome (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unexplained usage of jargon like 'haircut' is unhelpful in the article. Not least because following the link through fails to add any useful information, because the definition in the lede to the 'haircut' article ("the difference between the market value of an asset used as loan collateral and the value ascribed to that asset when used as collateral for that loan") appears not to apply. Or if it does, you haven't explained how. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "haircut" refers to regulatory capital or collateral calculations and is not helpful in this context. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't like, which is not the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is that the opening sentence is factually incorrect, as I pointed out above, since the title is wrong. I'm not seeing any agreement that the term private sector involvement is, either broadly or specifically, about just the write-down of sovereign debt. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, isn't this what the cited sources, plus the numerous sources not in it, are offering? The wording used is not exactly the same across sources but the meaning is precisely the same, only paraphrased. In any case, TimTempleton, the title of the article will be an entirely different discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the lead paragraph of Wikipedia's article, 86.147.197.65, on "haircut": In popular media, "haircut" has been used to denote a financial loss on an investment, as in "to take a haircut," to accept or receive less than is owed. Which is crystal clear. So, there is nothing of substance to your argument. And BTW, you better rethink your use of the term "lede." Per WP:LEAD: The lead section is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. Just so that there is some modicum of legitimacy in your efforts at constructing objections. -The Gnome (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the primary use of the term "haircut" in finance. I'm going to have a look at how it got in our article. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no one said it's the exclusive use. I pointed out that the use of "haircut" in our article is the currently prevalent use of the term in finance. And all reliable sources testify to this quite conclusively. In terms simple: Nowadays, "post"-EZ crisis, a "haircut" is either (a) "to accept or receive less than is owed", or (b) short back and sides or whatever. But do have a look at sources, see what you can come up with. I have enormous confidence in your abilities.

-The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the term 'haircut' as used in financial contexts has more than one meaning, an article shouldn't use it without explaining in which sense it is being used. Or even better, not even use it at all, since by the time you have explained what you mean, you don't need the jargon anyway. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, once more, it has been used with the currently prevalent meaning. There is no case for "jargon" here, despite the efforts to stir a storm in a teapot. We have jargon when we use esoteric terms or expressions, known to a certain community only (professions, etc). Here, in the case of the term "haircut," it carries one and only one meaning in all its appearances in mass media during and after (sic) the crisis. The sources testify to this. -The Gnome (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just informed you that you are using it in a sense that is not the primary, prevalent, dominant, or commonly understood meaning in financial discourse. That's not what it means regardless of whether some folks sometimes use it to mean something different somehow. SPECIFICO talk 13:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, Wikipedia articles are written for a general readership. We have no reason to assume that they know (or care) what the 'currently prevalent' meaning of jargon like 'haircut' is. You apparent inability to understand that Wikipedia articles are written for the benefit of readers rather than to satisfy the obsessions of contributors explains much of your reluctance to write in comprehensible common English, but does not excuse it. Learn to write for your readership. Or find another hobby. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to both: Actually the term "haircut" has the primary, prevalent, dominant, and commonly understood meaning in financial discourse today as used in the article. For the umpteenth time, here's a random sample of sources using the term: A, B, C, D, E. I have no problem whatsoever, of course, of changing the term to something equivalent. Do some constructive work and replace it instead of stirring teacup storms. (The only reason you are carrying on this irrelevant to the AfD conversation is because I commented on the silly tagging of the term.) As to my "Wikipedia hobby"

, I'm quite content not making money out of my contributions. If others do make money, and are proud of it, I could not care less. -The Gnome (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That list appears to be a googled heap of remarkably weak references, from the blogosphere to cable news jargon. The dominant mainstream usage of the term haircut can be found here, at the website of the US Federal Reserve Bank, which oversees the largest chunk of the world financial markets. The following link will give you 4000 items to verify this. I suggest you read and digest them before making further references to your situation-specific, cherrypicked, limited appropriation of the term in an context that's irrelevant to the mainstream usage. Link: [17]. You're welcome. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting more and more sad. The pair of you demand that we do not use "jargon" but rather terms "serving the interests of the readership, who would prefer article titles to make their subject matter clear." So, I provide some links among myriads from mass media that use the term exactly as used in the article. But, no, then SPECIFICO changes tack and trots along with a link to ...the U.S. Fed

where of course the term is used in another, similar,yet more obscure context, with which only people versed in finance already know. You want popular, I give you popular. You want esoteric? I have esoteric. Decide what you want and I'll give it to you. You can thank me later. -The Gnome (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you what I want. Articles about clear subjects, properly sourced, free of original research and outright falsehoods, written for a readership unfamiliar with jargon, and with titles that accurately inform their readers of what exactly the subject matter is. Instead you seem intent on delivering an essay on the use of a common three-word-phrase in a specific context, seemingly with the intention of 'proving' that the phrase is never used in any other way. I don't thank people for using Wikipedia as a platform for their bizarre obsessions. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one said ever this is the term's "exclusive use" or tried to prove such nonsense. People can read. But you're getting upset now, 86.147.197.65. I was inviting SPECIFICO's thanks. An unfortunate slip, yours.

-The Gnome (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that you have now conceded that the phrase hasn't (contrary to what the article claimed) "come to signify" only one thing. Which is good, since I have just edited the article to remove such misleading assertions, and to make clear what the subject matter is. Perhaps if you'd avoided wasting so much time denying the self-evident, this whole lot of nonsense would have ended a lot sooner. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the currently prevalent meaning. End of story (though I'm sure you'll find something new to waste time about.) -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note : This whole thread is irrelevant to the AfD. Contributors can disregard it without risking any loss of information pertinent to the AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a contributor wishes to advise other readers to disregard his/her own comments, they can of course do so. Advice to disregard the comments of others should however be taken with a pinch of salt. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome it's very unfortunate that you are now trying to change the Haircut (finance) article. It's really unsupportable. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and 86.147.197.65 should find better ways to spend your time. The whole thread after I made the Note about trying to improve the article is a mess of exclusively your doing. It's all about, if one can believe it, one single word in the text. Such a mindset is truly beyond belief. I'm opting out of the AfD as far as your duo is concerned. -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A note by the original nominator for deletion of this article concerning a possible withdrawal of my nomination. As the article stood on nomination, it was, as I stated, largely unsourced. Since then it has undergone much revision, sources actually discussing the subject matter have been found, and to my mind parts of it could at least serve a useful purpose if merged into another article covering sovereign debt crises more broadly. I was accordingly considering withdrawing my nomination for deletion, after first revising the article to make the subject matter clear (at least in the body, in my opinion the title is still unnecessarily imprecise). Sadly though, my revisions have been reverted by the article creator, in what can only be seen as WP:OWNership behaviour 'justified' (in the second revert: the first had no explanation whatsoever) by a personal attack. Since it seems self-evident at this juncture that the article 'owner' is intent on imposing an essay on the use of a common three-word phrase on Wikipedia, rather than a proper encyclopaedic article on a clear single subject, my nomination for deletion stands. Wikipedia is not here to deliver lectures on what the proper usage of common phrases ought to be, and neither is it a guidebook to financial jargon. If people aren't willing to write on subjects rather than phrases, they are quite welcome to add to Wiktionary's collection of plagiarised definitions and original research, I'm sure, but I see no reason why they should be given free rein here. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News4Kids[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a shortlived local youth newspaper, with no genuinely strong claim to passing WP:NMEDIA. Newspapers are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they existed, but must be the subject of reliable source coverage outside their own self-published content about themselves -- but there's no such sourcing present here and I can't locate quality sourcing anywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not verifiable. School newspapers normally aren't notable; the article is completely unsourced and I can find no sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about non-notable school paper. Dial911 (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note from closer: I, and I expect other admins, would be inclined to support providing a copy of the deleted content here if an editor were to seriously look to both provide references for the material and establish notability under WP:GNG, and this is in line with multiple comments in the discussion. joe decker ^talk 04:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of unrecognized heirs of the Ottoman dynasty[edit]

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

The article is entirely unsourced and has been in this state since 2012. It contains original research and half of it is repetitive as the material can be found in the articles created separately and specifically for these individuals. Template:Ottoman princes fighting for the throne is sufficient enough and covers the topic of this page. Keivan.f^Talk 17:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research and unsourced since creation, no evidence of notability whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if notability can be established. I would prefer merger but since the article is completely unreferenced, it's not an option. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the topic is not notable. I can only say that I hope this bit of fun becomes notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gunni[edit]

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

Source indicates that the Gunni legend consists of a one-man hoax. Unable to find additional RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely local attempt at a jackalope, no indication of wider coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search revealed no reliable sources discussing the entity. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe a hoax. But the taxidermied example I saw at Marysville was excellent. Maybe the bushfires wiped out the population. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether to be more appalled in this statement by the gullibility on display or by the apparent understanding of what constitutes "notability"... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you there is no gullibility involved. Clearly a good hoax is notable. This was a bloody good hoax. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty good. Check out the Gunni "fact sheet" from Marysville tourism. You can see the fact sheet alongside the taxidermy on this flickr account. --tronvillain (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete it's not a notable cryptid. The specific art installation could be notable, but I don't see enough referencing for that, nor a good merge/redirect target ( Marysville Visitors' Information Centre is a redlink not mentioned elsewhere). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it could have been the equivalent of one of the fearsome critters, there doesn't seem to be anything to support that kind of folklore, and the taxidermy hoax itself doesn't appear to have achieved notability, however good it was. --tronvillain (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Boboto College. joe decker ^talk 04:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boboto Cultural Center[edit]

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

Non-notable cultural centre of Boboto College. Given sources are either passing mentions, dead links or are about the college. A quick google check revealed only a few hits. The Banner talk 14:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Boboto College. Limited coverage in both English and French language sources. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boboto College. This seems to be like a school hall used for concerts, etc. It is not likely to be separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Boboto College as above, not enough substance for a standalone article but acceptable for merging into the parent article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 30 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. joe decker ^talk 04:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marna (film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF. Jamez42 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 14:35, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five Talents[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG; lack of WP:RS. Article has nine sources (plus two 'further reading' entries): 2, 3, 4 and 9 can be discounted immediately as they are from the subject's own website. 5 is a very brief mention; 8 is a brief mention in a press release. 1 is from a questionable non-mainstream newspaper (see WP:NOTRELIABLE). 6 (BBC) is a dead link, and a search for the episode in question reveals it has been taken off the website (it can still be accessed on YouTube however). The program's description is 'The BBC's monthly charity appeal'. I'm honestly unsure how reliable 7 is, but in any case I can't find any information on the site which is more than a passing mention. As for 'Further Reading', no mentions in Christian Microenterprise Development. There is a possible mention in Development and Faith, but I can't verify how substantive it is.

The BBC source is the only one that would likely pass the definition of reliable; we need multiple reliable sources to meet the notability standards. Tera TIX 13:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a substantial mention in a Washington Post article, so this probably does meet WP:GNG now; could someone close this? Tera TIX 13:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 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 redirect to Sahaganj#Education. So Why 18:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlop English Medium School[edit]

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

Another of those non-notable schools....this time I cannot even find a govt listing....~~Blatantly promotional~~Struck per Kudpung's advice below — F R ⁺ 13:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Somewhere near to my erstwhile residence and no minimal non-trivial coverage.........∯WBG^converse 13:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All high schools are notable. I removed some promotional text. Eastmain (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Sahaganj#Education, where it's listed. The article as is doesn't have any notable detail to mention besides that it names its principal. The Sahaganj article has a lot of writeup on Dunlop corporation, so it's natural that Dunlop school would fit in with this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sahaganj#Education, per policy where it's listed. That said, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever promotional, blatant or otherwise, in the short neutral text about this school. Perhaps this is one reason why new and inexperienced users should first familiarise themselves with policies and guidelines before nominating, closing, or otherwise participating in AfD discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung - This version of the article may provide you with some insight into why I called it promotional. Thanks — F R ⁺ 10:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's not there now though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you refactor your vote statement above in light of the reply I have given. If you feel that I am editing contrary to established policies (as you have hinted above), please feel free to explain it to me at my talk page — F R ⁺ 10:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung — F R ⁺ 11:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be asking the same question at some corp-article? Umm......∯WBG^converse 12:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, please retract the last line which is a borderline PA. Whilst I respect you a lot as someone who has shepherded the NPP process for a long span of time, there's no need to be so unwilling to assume good faith with relatively new users.∯WBG^converse 12:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sahaganj seems the best option here, given the lack of source material. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sostre[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD as it was PROD'd and contested in 2008. This whole thing is totally dubious. It claims that the content was incorporated from the 1911 Britannica, but I can't find any of this information in there. The book cited also doesn't seem to confirm any of this. There are no other reliable in-depth sources that I could find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I also cannot find a related 1911 article. At present the article is self-contradictory: one part says the origin is a Scandinavian village; another part a German city (which should perhaps be village). It might be possible to trim this into a list article for people with the surname or cognate ones, but the two people named have no article. The German town does, but that does not merit this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The part in the lede about the Syv Søstre (Seven Sisters) Mountains existing is from the "Norway" article in EB but that seems a dubious connection to the family name that was added later, in any event. Leaning delete but I haven't really looked into it beyond finding the EB ref. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:30, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ferris[edit]

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

I am unable to find any substantial of the subject in reliable sources. Neither WP:BIO or WP:PROF appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for keeping Christopher Ferris: Spohrer (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Improved the article with additional CACM publication and OASIS document reference to add more evidence that WW:BIO is met.
- Note: 3 of 10 news stories were about Chris Ferris and HyperLedger (see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Also WP References are about Chris Ferris and HyperLedger. All this in spite of the fact that Chris Ferris is a common name, and there is a prolific author of non-technical writing with the name Chris Ferris.
- Note: I have added a reference indicating that Chris Ferris is an important person to the HyperLedger Project of the Linux Foundation, as Chair of the Technical Steering Committee. I also added a reference to the importance of the HyperLedger Project to the Linux Foundation. Ferris (as can be verified by his GitHub profile) has made substantial contributions to an important open community project used by 200 members and associates. Not sure how to add the significance of Chris Ferris' GitHub contributes to the article - but working on that... but he is a technically eminent and famous person because of that.
- Note: Hyperledger refers to Christopher Ferris.
Spohrer (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Polyamorph: Thank-you for reviewing the page for Christopher Ferris. Spohrer (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument for not deleting: Christopher Ferris is an important and famous member of the "Open source advocates" category. Spohrer (talk) 2:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Argument for not deleting, as well as expanding WP:AUTHOR for WP:CREATIVE to include mention of creative people who are significant open source coders/programmers, contributors, committers, maintainers, and governance board members of open communities as notable people WP:BIO who are worthy of having a biography [WP:BIO] on Wikipedia. Last week, Microsoft offered $7B for GitHub, and this event is an indication of the economic significance of open source community work, and how it has grown to the point that an early enemy of open source now embraces it. Another example - Wiki is another example of the significance of open source work and community collaboration. Wikipedians and editor should rally to this cause, and expand WP:AUTHOR to include a line that goes beyond books, movies, and include open source software contributions as a creative act with great economic significance. Christopher Ferris article is a good article to have forced this discussion. Thanks to SmartSE for providing the starting point for this discussion here. Spohrer (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartse:, @The Mighty Glen:, @Polyamorph:, and @Daviding: please consider argument above for expanding WP:AUTHOR for WP:CREATIVE to include mention of creative people who are significant open source coders/programmers, contributors, committers, maintainers, and governance board members of open communities as notable people WP:BIO who are worthy of having a biography [WP:BIO] on Wikipedia. Also per WP:BIO "Special Cases" instructions, I am adding request for "cleanup biography" and more "expert needed" to Christopher Ferris article to continue improving it. Spohrer (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for keeping Christopher Ferris: Daviding (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ferris sufficiently notable within the blockchain community to be giving a keynote at the 2017 Open Source Leadership Summit (which I added to the entry) Daviding (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching Google Scholar, Ferris and Farrell (2003) is cited 321 times, see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16816122887588808031&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 ; W3C Working Group notes including Ferris as author are cited 220 times (for the 2002 draft) and 222 times (for the 2004 working group notes) Daviding (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartse: and @The Mighty Glen: The page for Christopher Ferris should not be speedily deleted because the figure is a significant leader in the blockchain technology standards leadership, and blockchain is a fast-moving world. In the edits above, @Spohrer: has attempted some revisions. Are these sufficient? If not, please advise what else is required. (This is my first time contesting a speedy deletion, please advise if I'm not doing it right). Daviding (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The two of you, please let others participate.......
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. He seems to be successful in his field, but I can't find significant coverage of him, independently of his projects, to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, with only passing mentions in WP:Secondary sources. TMG^talk 07:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is who I think it might be, then he is probably notable. A search of GScholar indicates that Chris Ferris has papers with 507, 407, 249, 164, 158, 88, 76, 39 and 25 cites. There is also a paper on Web Architecture that is listed so many times I can't tell you how many cites it has. Several highly cited papers with 100+ cites (let alone 500+) should probably satisfy PROF. James500 (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate a third relist but given the sheer volume of nonsense prior to the first relist and James500's salient argumentation, this needs some more discussion.....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets criteria #1 of WP:PROF where it states “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” In addition, the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Mr. Ferris more than qualifies as demonstrated by cites to his papers as shown here at Google Scholar [18]. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet WP:NPROF. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There were more arguments for keep than delete, but none of them addressed the encyclopedic notability of the topic. Promotional issues largely cleared up, although AfD is not cleanup. The "most recent discussion" was also not a wholesale rejection of secondary educational institutions as being inherently notable, but it did require venerability. Given the topic, I doubt consensus will further develop on this topic unless it is proven to either be a hoax, or substantial independent information about the school become available. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chanda Lalit Mohan High School H.S.[edit]

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

I really don't know where to start....Non-notable with exactly zero sources except one listing in WBHS's databases....blatantly POV....with a sprinkling of WP:! — F R ⁺ 12:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All high schools are notable. At least this source confirms that the school exists. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Retarget to Panchita which discusses this as the only high school in the town. Article is highly promotionally-biased as it stands, but the section can be developed in Panchita, and when there are enough secondary sources, could potentially spin off to a legit article again. Right now I just see random articles such as DailyHunt [19] I would also rename to Chanda Lalit Mohan High School as H.S. is redundant with High School, but according to its student ID in that article, Chanda Lalit Mohan High School H.S or Chanda Lalit Mohan High School (H.S.) can suffice as aliases. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what drafts are for, so research can be done and filled in until they are ready for publication. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Just Chilling, and clean up - which any useful editor coming across such an article can, and probably should, do. That said, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever promotional, 'blatant' or otherwise, in the short neutral text about this non-profit government school. Perhaps this is one reason why new and inexperienced users should first familiarise themselves with policies and guidelines before nominating, closing, or otherwise participating in AfD discussions.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was done to clean up the promotional text. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Just to make it explicit, the promotional elements of this version of the article include a detailed description of how to reach the school from Kolkata, an overly detailed overview of the subjects offered by the school, the capitalization of arts (stream not offered by many institutions in Bengal) and the overall tone which almost reads like a brochure (albeit in bad English). Additionally, I personally feel that !votes should be based on concrete sources (or on the lack of them respectively) rather than hinting that the nominator (me) failed to abide by WP:BEFORE. — F R ⁺ 07:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that all high schools are notable does not follow consensus. In fact the most recent consensus was a rejection of this view. ALso, contrary to what is claimed, we do not keep US high schools because they "dump everything on the internet." In the case I know best, that of Sterling Heights High School, the keep was based on non-sports related coverage from indepdent news media. I still disagree with that keep, but the sources went a lot deeper than showing existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Panchita. The school is verified to exist, but we don't have enough source material for a dedicated article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a verified high school. More sources likely to exist in local language. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL google translate link for your convenience(omitting H.S. part). — F R ⁺ 10:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. General consensus has long been that verifiable secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Does your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Admin invoking SCHOOLOUTCOMES at AfD that you are avoiding school AfDs no longer apply, Necrothesp? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Sadhan[edit]

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

PROD was removed. Original PROD concern was Notability not asserted. One source, does not fulfill WP:ENTERTAINER, nor WP:ANYBIO. I do not see enough to make this bio notable. Alexf^(talk) 12:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one significant role is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville-Virginia football rivalry[edit]

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

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Rivalry is not establish via current citations which lightly cover game (series) results which is only six games to date. There is some routine coverage in some search results showing slight, but not significant (or national), coverage. WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is difficult to accurately judge the relevance of a rivalry by the means you have described. If you feel that it is not as meaningful as others, I think that would be worth adding to the article, but I certainly feel as though it exists and therefore is deserving of note in an encyclopedic manner. Additionally, the number of games is less of indication of the existence of the rivalry and more an indication of conference realignment and perhaps a comment on the rising relevancy of Louisville's athletics. Also, to say that it does not have enough citations is confusing to me, for it has 6 sentences total and four citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanwebb (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a perhaps not very widely known but it is quite established, in terms of Wikipedia, as notable. -The Gnome (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article contains zero WP:RS citations for the rivalry claim. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources" where " 'significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Hence this AFD, as the article topic is entirely unsupported at the moment. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see some: the SB Nation ("Ye Olde Virginia-Louisville Rivalrye", 2014); the Cardinal Connection ("Five In-Conference Rivalries I Care More About Than Virginia, And So Should You", 2016); Vox Media ("A Kentucky Fan: I hate Louisville and So Should You", 2015). -The Gnome (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. is a 2014 general/basketball article, when the football teams had played only twice, most recently in 1989. 2. is the author's opinion piece which references the conference's (ACC) positioning re football scheduling. "the conference has been shoving Virginia in our faces, telling us they’re our most heated rivals now." and "We may be stuck in this forced rivalry with Virginia, but that doesn’t mean the ACC can make me care about it" 3. is a 2015 aggregation by SB Nation's Virginia site of fan comments from "a Kentucky Wildcats community". "The Conference dubbed Louisville-Virginia as permanent cross-division rivals, but a rivalry is not made overnight. Instead, we reached out to SB Nation's A Sea of Blue, a Kentucky Wildcats community, to ask them why we should hate the Cardinals."

Again, currently there are zero RS citations of an actual football rivalry, much less any "significant coverage" as required by GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even what little coverage exists doesn't appear to be taking the "rivalry" seriously. "Rivalries" which only receive coverage for being bad imitations of rivalries fail WP:NRIVALRY, and except in rare cases like the Civil Conflict, they fail GNG as well. And this doesn't have nearly the coverage of that thing, whatever you want to call it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the analysis presented by the nom. This is WP:TOOSOON. shoy (reactions) 15:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sources I can find that even call this a "rivalry" are fan blogs, one by an editor named "Steak n Eggs" or something like that. Pretty sure we can chalk those up to the "non-reliable-source" column, and we're left with scores. Nowhere near the standards that we typically look for in establishing a rivalry article here on Wikipedia. try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:11, 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 merge to Australian Army Cadets. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Cadet Advisory Council[edit]

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

This article does not need to exist on Wikipedia. It's more suited to be sourced from the organisation that it is from, and might technically contain information that should not be here without permission from said organisation. Tytrox (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australian Army Cadets. I don't see the copyvio. Merge should be somewhat selective, but it clearly exists and should be mentioned in the parent article (and is no there presently).Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian Army Cadets. — IVORK _Discuss 22:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with proposal of selective merge (to at least explain the existence of a governing body). As long as contributors understand what they can and can't publish.Tytrox (talk) 01:01, 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. Enigma^msg 02:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Davis (music executive)[edit]

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

Turned down at articles for creation for lack of notability, this conflict of interest editor published the article anyway under a slightly different title. I think the subject of the article fails WP:NBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the entire lede of the article is all capital words, that's pretty much WP:VANISPAM to the letter. Nate • (chatter) 00:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough news covering person Joaomufc (talk) 14:00, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Kumari[edit]

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

Notability has not been demonstrated as per WP:NMODEL. She participated in various contest but has not won any major beauty pageant. References in credible sources only confirm that she represented India in Miss International 2017, WP:BLP1E applies here. Nothing else could be found to support notability as per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not demonstate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With no prejudice to recreation once she does win the beauty pagent — F R ⁺ 11:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Collaborative Design Center[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 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 Passes WP:GNG. Extensive in-depth coverage in academic sources [20]. See, for example:

Blake, Sheri (2012). "Enhancing Design Programming: The case of the Detroit Collaborative Design Center and the Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation". Enhancing building performance. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 60-74. ISBN 9780470657591. OCLC 757478529.
Abendroth, Lisa M.; Bell, Bryan (2015). "Impact Detroit Community How-To Guides". Public Interest Design Practice Guidebook: SEED Methodology, Case Studies, and Critical Issues. Routledge. ISBN 9781317609551.
Hart, Joseph. Divine Design. Utne 116 (2003): 18-18.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suwannee Hulaween[edit]

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

Non-notable music festival; once all the WP:PROMO and other unencyclopedic piffle is stripped out, query whether anything would be left. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually was able to find some reliable sources that could be enough to meet WP:NEVENT. Here is an article at an NPR affiliate discussing the effect of the festival on the small town that hosts it; here is a HuffPo interview with one of the event organizers; an article on charitable donations from the event after the 2017 hurricanes; and another on the 2018 festival lineup from the blog of the Tampa Bay Times culture critic. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The HuffPo interview didn't look to me to be an independently written WP:RS, and the other pieces didn't add up to enough to get past WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH, and WP:PERSISTENCE. All of these are routine local Tampa Bay/south Florida news stories that don't demonstrate an encyclopedic level of notability. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 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. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 14:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominions 4: Thrones of Ascension[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. found only two reliable sources, IGN Italy, and the Rock, Paper Shotgun article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few more including a "blog" series from PCGamer (start), and RPS covers it a bit more extensively than just the review: RPS 1, RPS 2, PCGamesN, Killscreen, Wargamer, VG247, Indiegames. I actually didn't see the IGN Italy link. Don't know that I'm a keep, but I'm fairly sure I'm not a delete. --Izno (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At a bare minimum, even if it's not kept, it should be redirected to its prior game Dominions 3: The Awakening both as a plausible redirect and as an alternative to deletion. --Izno (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd mention above, that the PCGamesN link doesn't provide anything. VG247 looks like a routine release (Possibly paid), but the others seem ok. I'm still not convinced it is a definate keep though, and the article itself is a complete mess. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic has widespread coverage in reliable sources, including IGN Italy, RPS, VG247, and Kill Screen. JOE BRO 64 12:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but this thing definitely needs a solid rewrite. There's a lot of sources that pass muster from Izno and that meet WP:VG/RS-- the article as it stands right now is a hot mess, but it's notable enough to be a standalone article. Nomader (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Green[edit]

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

Unnotable biography about a singer on Americas Got Talent who received the golden buzzer and got eliminated in the quarter finals. Just because she got a golden buzzer or was on a talent show does not mean an article has to be made. Outside of AGT she does not establish notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I propose either a deletion or a redirect to the season 12 page of AGT. AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I always say you need good sourcing to keep articles on minors. Green is about 14, maybe even still 13. She might at some point become a notable musician, but she clearly is not one now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Is being 14 years old WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia? I can't tell any more. -The Gnome (talk) 22:54, 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 02:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rosen[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, no in-depth coverage. Linked-in is not a reliable source. Also, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his father. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sports caster. We have way too many articles on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability extremely doubtful. Deb (talk) 09:37, 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 09:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Balder[edit]

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

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artur Balder (2nd nomination) (Closed due to lack of participation, with no prejudice against speedy renomination) for the full details.

This article lacks a neutral point of view and probably also lacks notability. If anything, he should be notable for insulting a journalist who doubted his relevance. The mention to this is nuanced by the statement "The sentence is not final and can be subject to appeal", even though - if I'm not mistaken - the appeal was equally rejected and it is also interesting to note that he has since then stopped tweeting.

Many of the sources used either are not as reliable as they seem, or simply do not prove the stated facts: Allegedly, he has "collaborated" with the MoMA twice:

In May 2013 the film directed by Balder Ciria pronounced thiria was premiered at the MoMA[48] in New York City, a documentary film about contemporary art sponsored by Spanish company Telefónica.[49][50] The film was premiered by the Martin Gropius Bau in Berlin in November 2013.[51] [52] In 2015 a second collaboration with the Museum of Modern Art took place with the premiere of a documentary about Spanish artist Joan Castejón.[53][54]

Despite the seven sources, these affirmations are, to say the least, exaggerated: I contacted the Museum of Modern Art, and they confirmed that no formal collaboration with Artur Balder had taken place; the screenings took place during private theatre rentals.

Another quite surprising fact is the mention of two awards given by the "Spanish Wagner Society":

Total Art work Prize 2013 from the Spanish Wagner Society to the Saga of Teutoburg.[59]

Bicentenary Richard Wagner Prize 2013 from the Spanish Wagner Society.[60]

These mentions ommit that this quite irrelevant local Alicante-based club had been founded by Artur Balder himself.

The deleted Spanish Wikipedia article and the still existing en.wikinews article which was part of the harassing campaign that led to the above mentioned ruling had also been completed with information sourced to a supposed local news site, alicantecultura.org, which seemed to be registered by the same person who had registered Artur Balder and seemingly was mainly used to promote 'independently' Artur Balder and his interests. See for more details the previous RfD.

I believe all articles related to Artur Balder are biased, and have been written while in conflict of interest - while doing a great effort to make them look encyclopedic and neutral or are based on manipulation & deceit. A whole bunch of socks have abused Wikipedia (and related projects) over the years, using constructed or biased sources, to increase his notability. Savh ^{tell me} 08:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows this individual is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though there may be trace of notability to his career, he and his friends also has a very long history of 1) IW spamming, and 2) false arguments used to enlarge his reputation. --Orland (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is notable and passes WP:GNG. I don't know why the editors have filed so many AfD nominations to this article? Is there a COI against the individual? Accesscrawl (talk)
@Accesscrawl: I personally believe I do not have a conflict of interest, though I do have a bias against abuse of Wikipedia and due to previous discussions (see further on) but have tried to keep it factual. I have however no other interest (or any hate whatsoever) with regard to this subject than the accuracy and legitimacy of the content on Wikipedia. I have spent quite some effort in collecting all the evidence to support this and the previous RfD's, which to my disappointment lacked any community input and were closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. On hindsight, now might be a better point to evaluate his real relevance since - after the court ruling - he has seemingly stopped his self-promotion campaign. I do believe, however, that the main contributors to the article are all single-purpose accounts with some sort of conflict of interest (cf. c:File_talk:Artur_Balder_Directs.jpg). All but one of the users who added content (added bytes according to [21]: Lolox76 (talk · contribs), Kim.looser (talk · contribs), Starwar25 (talk · contribs), Ficxitalf (talk · contribs), W58hj (talk · contribs), W56J (talk · contribs) and Ficxitalf2 (talk · contribs), the last one being the only exception) have only contributed to this article.

The latter also posted this reply to my last Request for Deletion which might be interesting, though in my opinion consists mostly of ad hominems and other totally unbased statements, such as the involvement of the Spanish Royal Family. Even though I intended to re-file an RfD as a response to the arguments he provided, I later never did. I believe discussing this now, on hindsight, is also better suited, as the passing of time learns us that no criminal prosecution took place as claimed, and the earlier mentioned civil procedure ruled against him.

Amongst many different accusations, insinuations and fallacies, the user there remarks, with regard to my conclusion about the bias of the Asociación Wagneriana de Alicante, the following:
Regarding the ‘Asociación Wagneriana de Alicante’, we are tired to see how institutions can honor members if they had a prominent carrier. Savh jumps into conclusions and furthermore all his statements hide a clear disdain to freedom of speech. If a number of people, or an institution, decide to concede an award or mention, this is something that has to be respected. He can have a personal opinion about this, but not build a conspiracy theory in order to damage a subject, constantly acting as if the references to a carrier as a writer, and the as a filmmaker, do not exist.
The prizes granted by this "Asociación Wagneriana de Alicante" has been reported by many other sources. It mentions the culture section of Europa Press as ‘regional’ with reckless intention to deceit non-well informed readers from the English speaking area, because Europa Press is a news agency that serves its contents to hundreds of media across Spain. Clearly deceitful and biased statement written with the sole intention to distort the real facts, besides not mentioning many others that could work against its un-understandable ‘crusade’.

While I have no idea what the freedom of speech has to do with this, I simply believe that - even if reported in media, an award given by an association he founded himself is irrelevant, and it leads me to believe the 'sources' have simply taken over supposed press releases from that association (thereby lacking independence. For instance, this Europa Press article explicitly mentions that the information has been provided by the press office of Joan Castejón. In a facebook post, the same artist refers to another article spread by Europa Press and included by La Vanguardia as the "official statement"). Europa Press is indeed a national press agency with regional departments which produce 'local' news, but isn't that thorough in checking press releases.

With regard to the religious aspects he mentions in response to the previous RfD – the article states that "All four episodes of the Saga of Teutoburg were distinguished as lifetime sacred text of Ásatrú religion[25] by Odinist Community of Spain — Ásatrú, Spain, 2014.[26][27] – it is worth noting their response to the alleged "growing corruption in the Spanish Wikipedia".

Further on:

I am not in any way related to the journalist, nor do I have contact with the Spanish Royal Family. My edit to the journalist article consisted in reverting vandalism. I tried to contact both the journalist and Artur Balder through Twitter, the latter blocked me and the former did reply, giving her point of view. Nothing I have provided is however based on that conversation, though.
I did not add the paragraph regarding the legal controversies, nor do I know who did.
I have no idea what the Spanish Wikipedia articles on porn actors have to do with this.
My account is only accessed by me, and I am not paid for doing this. I don't know why the mentioned board member is brought up, nor what her relation with this case is.
I do care about the reliability of content on Wikipedia, and I believe this article, has served as a basis for his faked notability, spiralling his notability through fake news websites and press releases of irrelevant organisations (see for instance this addition of an alleged website of the Spanish Benevolent Society which is only a promotional website for the film. It was later changed to a new site, which has no mention of the "Spanish-American International Award" allegedly given to Balder in 2012).

I hope I have made clear my purpose is none other but to guarantee the reliability of this project. Sincerely, Savh ^{tell me} 16:09, 30 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Pilegaard[edit]

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

Non notable producer. Fails WP:BIO. All references point to Lukas Graham, none for Morten Pilegaard. scope_creep (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE too, insofar as a producer is "creative" in any endeavor. None of the references give him any significant coverage at all. Epic fail of WP:GNG in spite of all the cited sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Morten Pilegaard as it strictly is information about his released music and awards and nominations. This is a producer often mentioned in context with the world famous Artist/Band Lukas Graham. As producers are not the ones in the spotlight the amount of sources is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrederikTWTTW (talk • contribs) 09:05, 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 procedural close. Duplicate nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BS 7925-1. ansh 666 05:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BS_7925-2[edit]

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

Superceded Andrew D Banks (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that this BS 7925-2 stub-page be deleted, with a redirection to ISO/IEC 29119.

This BS 7925-2 article has very limited content, and this standard has now been superseded by ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-4 - so what little is here, is obsolete anyway!

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: I posted this on the Talk Page of the article on 13 October 2017, with no response (for or against!)

Andrew D Banks (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Incredibly scanty hits suggest that nobody ever cared. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge + redirect per Andrew D Banks, though I would suggest simply editing the pages to a redirect to retain contributor history rather than deleting. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal In the interests of sanity can all further discussion take place on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BS 7925-1 and whatever is decided for that goes for this also. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:00, 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 18:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Burman[edit]

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

Subject is a music producer. Sources are either interview pieces, IMBD, or merely passing mention. No source found on in dept or direct talk about Burman. Fails WP:CREATIVE. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of the article here, so my POV on this matter is clear already! There aren’t clear guidelines on notability for music producers in the same way that there are for just musicians, however, Burman very clearly has "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work” as specified in WP:Creative #3. His work with most notably with Nickelback - which has been recognized by Billboard - but also with dozens of other artists as an A&R supports this. Being the President of a notable label, and being hired to speak at notable organizations and events further supports his credibility and notability. Finally, I would note that articles on other A&Rs use similar sourcing, such as Loren Israel. I can’t deny that some of the articles used are merely passing mention and that there isn’t much in-depth discussion *on* him, but I think he passes based on point #3 of WP:Creative as a record label executive and A&R. Heartgears T(alk)’ 5:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Heartgears Hi, "his work with Nickelback" was merely passing mention (1 sentence in the article) and the article did not "directly in dept" talk about Mr. Burman which what notability guidelines required. If you could find reliable and independent source to support that, then add them in the article. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP, not sufficient for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 18:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NayaTel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a second nomination - I'm not able to find sufficient WP:RS to pass WP:NORG. Last AfD closed no consensus - article has had persistent issues with spam and promotional content. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty much an ad and not at all an article. Boy, do I love soap articles that aren't encyclopedic at all. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 07:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Britain for Europe[edit]

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

Article mostly cited from a combination of unreliable sources and self-published articles. Coverage in the media seems to be predominantly a one-sentence description of the organisation, which is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. RaviC (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nature of the subject means that media coverage talks about BoF along with other groups that collaborate. Some articles are about the work of several groups. In these cases the whole article is about the groups collectivity not just a passing mention. For example see this article. It could be argued to merge all the Pro-EU groups into one page but the information is clearer in this format. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's already a page about all of the pro-EU groups, at Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom#Groups. It should thus be merged there, if there is to be a merger. --RaviC (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A merge might be possible but I am not sure where - possibly a merge with Best for Britain. Vorbee (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A better target would probably be People's Vote. However, the information is clearer as separate articles. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no substantial coverage of the group. This is the best I can find, but even that barely contributes towards notability. Ralbegen (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article already had refs from The Guardian and The Independent. Now has extra refs from reliable sources and has been cleaned up. Objections are just flotsam and jetsam of Brexit really. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if you could assume good faith. Regardless, the Guardian article mentions the group just twice, and the Independent article just once. That's definitely not enough to fulfill WP:GNG --RaviC (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the subject means that media coverage talks about BoF along with other groups that collaborate. Whole articles are about the work of several groups, therefore it is more than just a mention. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By your own logic, you should be arguing for a merger as the subject's argued notability is derived by association with the other groups. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages. --RaviC (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would only be the case if the notability was derived from the other groups. However, Britain for Europe is more than a passing mention in some of the articles. See comment below. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if you could WP:AGF. - I always have and I always will. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vintage Feminist, did you just label "flotsam and jetsam" every suggestion by another editor contrary to yours? And did you just append bias to their suggestions? I'm afraid your comments are out of line. We're not debating Brexit here. Simmer down. -The Gnome (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vintage Feminist, did you just label "flotsam and jetsam" every suggestion by another editor contrary to yours? - Nope.
Objections are just flotsam and jetsam of Brexit really. I labelled Brexit as a contentious issue which it is. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. A "contentious" issue is, of course, not the same as a "garbage" issue, or in your words "flotsam and jetsam." One can read the lines as well as between them. Let's leave this be. -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also a discussion on the deletion of the image, File:Britain for Europe Logo, removed in this diff. The discussion is here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject lacking demonstrable, independent notability.

Examining the sources shows that up: The Guardian article is about the ostensible resurgence of pro-EU sentiment in the UK; the subject of this contested article, "Britain for Europe," is mentioned only twice, in passing. Nothing substantial about the organization itself at all. Same thing with The Independent article, where "Britain for Europe" is mentioned only once, in a list of similar outfits, i.e. verbatim "The groups involved are the all‐party Parliamentary Group on EU Relations; Open Britain; Best for Britain; the European Movement UK; InFacts; Scientists for EU; Healthier IN the EU; Britain for Europe; and The New European newspaper." And that's all as far as acceptable sources are concerned, which is nothing. The rest are primary sources. They are useful when we want direct access to what they represent, but they do not, of course, establish notability. -The Gnome (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole of the Guardian article is based around interviews with people from EU in Brum, a Britain for Europe affiliate group. Note Britain for Europe is an affiliation organisation consisting of roughly fifty groups. Guardian article:

The three of them are among the 15 people behind EU in Brum, an amazingly active set-up that was founded in the days after last year’s referendum. None of them did any formal campaigning prior to the vote; they fully expected the leave campaign to amount to nothing more threatening than a sizeable protest vote, and for remain to convincingly win. Late last year, EU in Brum was also the host for a “national grassroots remain strategy meeting”, organised by the new national pressure group Britain for Europe, and intended to coordinate the work of a whole host of campaigns.

“There were about 40 organisations there,” says Turvey. “More dialled in on Skype. We had somebody from Gibraltar. There are a lot of expat organisations – people who travel from France and Germany to the meetings. It’s about collaboration, how we can work together, and grow the movement. We’re all linked now, and there’s work going on all the time.”

This constitutes more than a passing mention. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Guardian ref added diff. Quote:

Britain for Europe and the European Movement maintain branches around the country, keeping the conversation alive and preparing to spring into action the moment a referendum is announced.

That's more than a passing mention as well. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A one sentence mention giving a basic description of the group seems to be a passing mention to me? I certainly wouldn't consider it significant coverage of the group, and it doesn't help at all with writing an article about the group.

Having an affiliate which has received significant coverage in one reliable source doesn't seem to me to contribute to notability either. See WP:INHERITORG, with the closest example in the text being "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries". And that said, I don't think EU in Brum meets notability requirements unless there are more articles like the John Harris one linked... Ralbegen (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Passing mention" is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

Also from WP:INHERITORG: This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. This is an argument for an article about EU in Brum being deleted on the grounds that it's "inherited" notability comes from playing host to a “national grassroots remain strategy meeting”, organised by the new national pressure group Britain for Europe."

There's also the Financial Times article that's just been added. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the Financial Times article but I somehow doubt there's significant coverage of the subject in it. I mean, the headline reads "Britain's Europhiles splinter into dozens of grassroots movements"! And the quote in our Wikipedia article is this: "The FT described the groups as 'diehards' that splintered off from the Open Britain group; saying they seek to reverse Brexit rather look for favourable terms of exit." Come on now. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The paraphrase in the article is all the material in the Financial Times article. It's mentioned in one sentence as more radical than Open Britain, and a nine-sentence description in a glossary of the various groups. There's more material in the article about a nn group called "EU Flag Mafia" than about Britain for Europe. Ralbegen (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick correction of a slip: "nine-sentence" should be "nine-word". EddieHugh (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Financial Times: I do not have access to the Financial Times article but I somehow doubt there's significant coverage of the subject in it.

Two quotes (which I have added to the ref):

...the official campaign has split in two: a pragmatic Open Britain that is resigned to Brexit but hoping to soften its terms, and a more radical Britain for Europe, which is still determined to overturn it.

and in a list of pro-Europe groups at the end of the article -

Britain for Europe: Open Britain splinter group still fighting Brexit. The diehards. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(That's literally all there is about this organisation in the FT article – 22 words – confirming The Gnome's doubts.) EddieHugh (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

36 + 12 = 48 not 22, but even if it were 22 I don't think it would confirm The Gnome's doubts. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonpatterns, the text you copied actually supports, and quite forcefully too, my position: the group "Britain for Europe" gets less space than EU in Brum, an organization that does not even have a Wikipedia article. (But I guess we might see one pretty soon.

) The only mention of "Britain for Europe" in The Gurardian is a passing one in relation to the other outfit. And you seriously find this to be significant coverage, as the policy demands?! What can I say. I'll let those who'll read the article see for themselves.

By the way, you might be under the impression that this discussion is shaped by politics or Brexit itself. (The signs of boiling blood have already appeared above.) I don't know about others, but as far as I'm concerned the only issue here is notability and the encyclopaedic merit of an article about the subject. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EU in Brum is part of Britain for Europe. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False. There is a rather big difference between being "part of" something and being "affiliated with" something, which is what EU for Brum is to BfE. If you don't know the difference, others do. -The Gnome (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False. In this case Britain for Europe is an affiliation of groups, an umbrella group. Therefore, in this specific instance there is no difference between being "part of" and "affiliated with" the group, therefore EU for Brum is part of BfE. If you don't know the difference, others do. For more information see BfE -our groups. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Still no cigar, sorry. An affiliation is not the same as being "part of," as any lawyer worth his shiny leather shoes would explain to you. If, for instance, EU for Brum vandalizes a property, do you expect Britain for Europe to be liable for damages? Would property damages caused by EU for Brum be remedied by Britain for Europe? Yes or no? Because this is what happens when some entity is "part of it" instead of being at arm's length, i.e. simply affiliated. Would you like to think this over a bit? -The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Late last year, EU in Brum was also the host for a “national grassroots remain strategy meeting”, organised by the new national pressure group Britain for Europe, and intended to coordinate the work of a whole host of campaigns. One of those campaigns being - quite obviously - EU in Brum. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bold away as much as you feel like, but notability for EU for Brum is not notability for Britain for Europe. And you should know why it's not. -The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote higher up — "Also from WP:INHERITORG: This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership."

An argument is being made for deleting an article about EU in Brum on the grounds that it is trying to "inherit" its notability from Britain for Europe as it is playing host to a “national grassroots remain strategy meeting”, organised by the new national pressure group Britain for Europe." but this AfD is about Britain for Europe. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does coverage of EU in Brum not contribute towards notability of Britain for Europe, but the relationship between the two of them seems to be overstated. Britain for Europe claims EU in Brum as a member group, but EU in Brum doesn't consider this affiliation important enough to mention anywhere on their website, only listing Britain for Europe in a longer list of pro-EU organisations. Ralbegen (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from EU in Brum "about" web page — EU in Brum was founded in July 2016 and is a part of a national grass roots movement of people who....

The link goes to Britain for Europe's interactive map of local groups. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I missed that. Thanks for the correction. It doesn't change the notability argument, or that coverage of EU in Brum doesn't contribute towards the notability of Britain for Europe. Ralbegen (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly soured and dubious notability - anything of value can be merged elsewhere -----Snowded ^TALK 00:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give this group a sentence in one of the consolidated pro EU group pages. We shouldn't have a page for every minor pressure group Lyndaship (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm all for taking the nature of the subject (context) into account, as Jonpatterns suggests. The context here is Brexit, which is the topic for innumerable media pieces (from reliable sources) every day and has been for the last few years. There should then, if this is a notable organisation, be no difficulty in establishing its notability from such sources. However, the sum of what has been presented is: 2 brief mentions in a Guardian article; 1 sentence in another Guardian article; half a sentence in the Financial Times, plus a 9-word description in a table summarising 13 similar groups; brief mentions (1 sentence at most, but usually just mentioning the group's existence) in various other articles (Guardian, Independent, New Statesman). The rest is about affiliates or not from reliable, independent sources. That's not enough to establish notability, context or no context. EddieHugh (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralbegen: The main misunderstanding here seems to be to miss that the organisation is a collective of groups, or umbrella organization. Each affiliate is a part of the group. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a misunderstanding or something that's been missed. Being an affiliate is a weak connection; it just means being associated in some way with a group, not being a formal part of a group. The problem here is that there's almost no information about Britain for Europe in reliable, independent, etc. sources. For notability, WP:CORPDEPTH requires "significant coverage [that] provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization". EddieHugh (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation can be weak or strong depending on the terms of affiliation. Also, see the definition of umbrella organization - 'an organization that coordinates the activities of a number of member organisations to promote a common goal'. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know. If only we had some sources stating how close the link is... it looks weak and sources haven't been supplied and presumably don't exist, which takes us back to the main problem. EddieHugh (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the many Brexit articles argument. Its probably easier for media companies to grab concoct an article around big name donors for groups like Best for Britain than report what is happening at a local level. Jonpatterns (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Observation There's quite a lot of I don't think these mentions are quite mention-y enough and These mentions are Beef flavoured, I prefer Cheese & Onion flavoured mentions to some of the arguments being made. It's been over a fortnight since the OP was made (when the article looked like this). The article now has reliable, notable sources which are more than a single sentence. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Cows Comedy[edit]

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

Notability concerns since 2008. Created by hazelokeefe, suggesting a WP:COI as a woman with the same name is involved in the event. Can't find any substantial mentions in WP:RS. Tera TIX 12:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 12:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 12:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 12:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A promotionally-worded WP:SPA article. The promotional wording could be edited-out but would leave only the basic description of a promoter going about its business rather than demonstrating notability. I added a couple of media items, of which the 2014 Mancunian Matters item is the more substantial, but I am not seeing substantial evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems like there are enough sources out there, but the article needs work. Even in spite of its questionable origin. StrayBolt (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added some more references although the tone could be improved. StrayBolt (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It's the lack of notability more than the WP:COI-infested WP:PROMO cruft. An admirable effort and outfit, though, I submit, just not yet Wikinotable; hopefully, it will be in the future. -The Gnome (talk) 23:18, 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 and redirect to Raj Thackeray. delete & redirect as plausible search term ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmila Thackeray[edit]

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

Being the wife of a politicion doesn't make her notable. Notability is not inherited. There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject and no evidence she played a major role in politics or election campaigning.Thus Delete Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Gave a few speeches, bitten by a dog and being a politician's wife doesnt not pass WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 08:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 08:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please check the talk page of the article. Creator is new user, best to userify this article. With help he got to afc procedure, he was able to make a draft article (not submitted) via that. At present this BLP article may not be notable according to wikipedia guidelines. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 04:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify There is some notability, so with proper sourcing it may pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and then create Redirect to Raj Thackeray#Personal life. No independent notability or significant coverage.

The most substantial coverage I found was, (1) this gossipy 2014 Sunday Guardian piece which starts with Thackeray's wife Sharmila, who has not been involved in politics so far... and then goes on to speculate on how the subject may be obstructing her sister-in-laws rise in politics; four years hence there has been no follow up along those lines. And (2), this DNA piece about how Sharmila T. has acquired some property/construction permits, i.e. matters that would be completely routine except for the subject's relation to a high-profile politician; the unstated insinuation being that not everything was by the book. Needless to say, it would violate BLP to base a standalone biography on either of these thin sources.

Draftification would make sense if we had found many sources and just needed time to incorporate them properly in the article. When such sources are simply absent, what is the extra time in draft space buy us? If at some point the subject does enter politics and receives substantial independent coverage a new article can be created. Till then 1-2 sentences in the Raj Thackeray article should suffice. Abecedare (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 02:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Lederer-Alton[edit]

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

Notability not established. No significant roles since the article was tagged for better references in 2009 Jack1956 (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Personally I feel this is too soon aswell, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, at least as far as attested by the current set of references. Twitchymeatbag (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy no consensus. Closed as this AFD was created by a sockpuppet account. No prejudice against any subsequent AFD. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliseo Medina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eliseo Medina

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

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

Non-notable made purely for self promotion. Inightfox (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 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. Closed as this AFD was created by a sockpuppet account. No prejudice against any future AFD. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Les Roberts (epidemiologist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Les Roberts (epidemiologist)

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

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

Non-notable epidemiologist with no relevant sources. Inightfox (talk) 04:31, 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. Enigma^msg 02:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohe Rang Do Laal[edit]

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

The song won four awards and the content can very well be incorporated in the soundtrack article. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you elaborate on your rationale for deletion as it does not make any sense to me. In particular, what is the policy-based reason for deletion? SpinningSpark 12:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the article's "Accolades" table, there are seven wins/nominations with citations, but most of the resulting links are defunct. I was able to confirm that footnotes 7 and 13 (current numbers) support the fact that the song received those accolades. If all of the other accolades can be supported with functioning sources, the song probably has enough awards to qualify for its own article. I would support a Keep vote in that case. Meanwhile, it looks like the nominator supports a merge to the parent soundtrack album, which could be done boldly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information from the lead section is either present in the soundtrack article. Plus, there is no information about its making or inception or video. Accolades can be put into parent article as well. I did not move it boldly because the creator is singer's fan and has been contributing accordingly. He has reverted me elsewhere so did not want to start edit warring. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 04:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is disappointing that the nominator cannot be bothered to explain their nomination after being asked and this has had to go to a relist. The nomination says that "the song won four awards". This is a rationale for "keep", not "delete". All eight of the awards in the table are blue-linked and presumably notable. The song has a lot of news coverage so their is a prima facie case for notability. SpinningSpark 08:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt there was no option but to relist given the lack of input (just a question asked of the nominator and one user profferring a comment). This is now trending keep. Enigma^msg 03:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{ping|Enigmaman]] There was no intention on my part to imply criticism of your relist. That was a perfectly sensible action. You may have missed though, that User:doomsdayer520 gave a provisional keep if the accolades were sourced. All of them currently have links to functioning sources, at least to an archive copy. SpinningSpark 11:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Enigmaman: pinging again because the first one was malformed. SpinningSpark 11:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did see that but he or she would need to unqualify that for the closing admin. Enigma^msg 14:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think so. If I was closing and the condition was objectively met then I would count a conditional keep. SpinningSpark 15:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song is a winner of a Filmfare award (highest order award in Bollywood), hence passes 2nd point of WP:NSONG. Pratyush (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 02:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Blake[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. My Google searches for "Alicia Blake" washington softball and "Alicia Matthews" washington softball (Matthews is her maiden name) returned little beyond routine local media coverage from her college softball career. Thus, she has not "[g]ained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team" as is required in WP:NCOLLATH.

Additionally, her online biography on the University of Washington Athletics website does not indicate any national awards or NCAA Division I records broken, other requirements for college athlete notability. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NCOLLATH, no evidence she passes the GNG. The article creator put up a few more of these to boot, eight years ago. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete college softball players are rarely notable for such, and nothing suggests this is an exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 30 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:SK. Nominator blocked as as sock, confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Donnie Park. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Bridge and Iron Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Bridge and Iron Company

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

Non-notable company. Inightfox (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 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 Speedy keep, sock nom. (non-admin closure) Natureium (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Norman Breslow

Norman Breslow[edit]

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

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

Non-notable American statistician and medical researcher. Inightfox (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 03:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article does not appear to have been WP:PRODed at any point. Nominatior probably should have tried that first. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 06:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. Block evasion confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Donnie Park. • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep/Speedy close. Top cited GScholar hits of 14501, 7978, 4456, h-index of around 80+, several published obituaries, including in Los Angeles Times and in Seattle Times, more than enough here to pass both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Not sure what was the deal with this nomination but it is difficult to view it as a good faith nom. Suggest a speedy close. Nsk92 (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep "Key figure in the foundation of modern biostatistics." [22] One of the most egregious failures of WP:BEFORE, and most blatant and convincing passes of WP:PROF, I've ever seen at AFD. Everymorning talk to me 13:37, 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 02:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Sonic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A duo artist band of lounge, house and dub music. Besides one source provided from Exclaim magazine, the rest are either listing or from IMBD user generated content. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:RS to back WP:MUSICBIO requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hmm. There are two reviews from Exclaim ([23], [24]), a short bio at Allmusic ([25]) and...not much else. I don't think there's quite enough to meet WP:BAND or the GNG. Sorry. — sparklism ^hey! 16:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing claimed here is a strong enough WP:NMUSIC pass to override how weak the sourcing is. Placing songs in TV shows is not a free pass over NMUSIC #10 just because you can technically source the placement to the episode's IMDb page — it's the amount of media coverage they do or don't get for placing songs in TV shows, not the nominal verification of song placements via primary sources, that determines whether placing songs in TV shows gets them into Wikipedia or not — but nothing else here shows or properly sources that they would pass any other NMUSIC criterion either. The Exclaim! reviews and the Allmusic blurb are a start, but they're not a finish all by themselves if they're all you've got, and no other footnote here counts for squat. Technically speaking, there's nothing here that's different enough, in either the substance or the quality of the sourcing, to exempt this from being speediable as a recreation of deleted content, either. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Ain't Charmed XXX[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film series. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. For an AfD on a page similar in scope, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babysitters (film). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NFILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure what coverage a porno film should expect to get in the mainstream press, but in any case, this doesn't have any so it fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 02:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dru Bex[edit]

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

Subject is a hip hop artist and record producer. Sources provide are primary such as home page, listing of songs, paid marketing from Bigbighit.com and Rapzilla interview/podcast . A WP:BEFORE found no WP:RS to support WP:MUSICBIO nobility requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to help an upstart..... once there is significant coverage then there could be an article.--Moxy (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not for wannabe hiphoppers. Do something and get back to us. And in the meantime, this is the sole Wikipedia activity, who opened his page with "This is the page of Andre Mullen, CEO & Artist Manager at The Inaxxs Group" -- I'm thinking this is a WP:PAID deal. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform for aspiring future notables to gain exposure — we're an encyclopedia on which making it comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. But this is referenced almost entirely to his own self-published promotional materials, not reliable sources, and the article claims nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 02:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papa's butter[edit]

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

Apparent hoax. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Hoaxes should not tolerated on Wikipedia, delete asap and move to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. 344917661X (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be deleted and it's clear that it should be deleted quickly per WP:SNOW. 344917661X (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing does not support article, and I cannot find anything in external searches. Article starts off seeming legit, but degrades quickly into what is either very poor OR or just plain out Hoaxing. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is my PROD that was contested by an IP. The references given do not support the content of the article (the source I can see does not mention it at all) and there are no relevant Google hits for anything else named in the article. Smells like a hoax to me. shoy (reactions) 11:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side note to @DGG: or the closing admin, the article creator's contribution history is very strange and might be worth some investigation. shoy (reactions) 19:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as hoax The only hit for "papa's butter" as a food is something completely different that is specific to one restaurant, and the "papa's trumpet" that is redlinked is even more hitless. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fairly obvious that this is a hoax. Tillerh11 (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The references in the article don't point to anything like the product described in the article and multiple gSearches don't turn up the use of the term for anything other than "butter made by Papa," or some such, and not a specific dairy item as implied by this article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:44, 30 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Chase (actress)[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre; award categories are not significant. The controversy is minor, not rising to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article illustrates my long contention that we have lots of articles on pornographic actresses that are no where near meeting any notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as per WP:PORNBIO. Her awards are not significant and the only mainstream media mention of her is a 1E. Ifnord (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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