Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 March	9 March >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electroneum[edit]

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

not notable, primary and self-published sources Retimuko (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete ETN has received coverage in The Telegraph (an IP editor removed that reference without explanation), but I do not think it currently meets the GNG. WP:NotJustYet. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forbes, the Telegraph, still TOOSOON. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources are ludicrous. Yet another effort to promote a cryptocurrency. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources can be improved. Forbes article highlights notable goals behind the currency. Also (on the negative side) raising the currency was the target of a novel cryptominer malware attack on March 6 (see ZDNet).Verne Equinox (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources that meet WP:GNG, let alone the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH. Forbes is not generally any good for notability checks because of it's contributor pieces, anyone can publish in forbes^{like me} The ZDnet article is just a mention. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Dark Horse Comics publications. Sandstein 09:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Honor (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book, fails WP:GNG. Currently part of a move debate over whether to further disambiguate the very notable Medal of Honor (series) due to the existence of this article. However, if it is non-notable it would be a moot point, and it is so far as I can tell. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dark Horse Comics publications. Somehow it's not listed there yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dark Horse Comics publications. I agree with Argento Surfer that it should have at least a mention there. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Perfect Strangers (TV series). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeca Arthur[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress for own standalone article. Google search indicates 15 hits aside from Wikipedia and IMDb. Quis separabit? 21:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little in-depth L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without consequence as she did appear as a regular cast member in the show Perfect Strangers for seven seasons.Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Perfect Strangers (TV series). A redirect might be useful to some as she is mentioned in that article as a cast member. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon J. Voas[edit]

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

Subjects lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. The Pulitzer prize nomination is dubious (no mention at Pulitzer.org), I've found no evidence of the awards from city and state organizations, and even if verifiable, they may not be enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO (note that the Golden Quill Award mentioned in this article is not the Shakespearean award of the same name). Also note, the article creator has a history of paid article editing, although it is undetermined whether the same applies here. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with impunity). The good news is that we do not need to TNT this awful article --or do something about the hoax Pulitzer nomination-- as the web holds basically zero mention of this person. And I mean nothing. Completely fails even WP:BASIC.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment assuming good faith she may have been nominated for a pullitzer but not shortlisted as the website only seems to list the shortlist for each year's award but I can't verify it anyway Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourceless, fairly standard reporter's CV. --Calton | Talk 15:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing to indicate she meets WP:GNG. Her Golden Quill awards/nominations are local awards from the Press Club of Western Pennsylvania's annual competition with paid entries in one of 103 categories (as of 2017). The Pulitzer Prize nomination may be valid, but it is not an indicator of notability since journalism entries "may be made by any individual based on material coming from a United States newspaper, magazine or news site"[1]. Papaursa (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dearth of sources to show notability. Found evidence she brought sweets to a protest, but no sources covering her. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. More information and references added after nomination. (non-admin closure) Natureium (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Riehl[edit]

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

Generally, Assistant Professors are not considered notable unless they are notable for something else. Natureium (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If only there were like 4 different references on the article that involve substantive coverage or interviews with this person, so we could decide whether she was notable. FFS. --JBL (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author of two well-regarded books, chosen as worthy of interviewing and profiling by multiple organizations. Manually adding up her Google Scholar h-index, I get 14, which is respectable for someone working on what is essentially the pure mathematics of pure mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NAFL doesn't seem to include the AFL International Cup. But we have enough in-depth coverage of her and her work for WP:GNG, and enough hits for the title of both of her books and "syllabus" to convince me that they are widely-used enough for WP:PROF#C4. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I added another reference. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally, Assistant Professors are not considered notable, but this particular one is. Passes WP:Prof as a pure mathematician (but might be marginal as an applied one). Also does all sorts of interesting stuff, but that would not meet WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A well sourced article that demonstrates meeting WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 21:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Franzi[edit]

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

Self promotional article, none of the sources seem to indicate notability standards. (Press releases, self published, etc.) Natureium (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. It's a C.V. and an advert. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They have been interviewed in Forbes, but that alone is not enough. Otherwise I see mainly mentions or, as Philafrenzy mentioned, self-published (or, at least, non-secondary) sources. Article in its current state also reads like a C.V. Overall, I just don't see enough for it to pass GNG at this time. If someone comes up with new information that I didn't find/see, which presents a good case as to why the article should be kept, I am more than willing to reconsider my !vote/position, just {{ping}} me. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot James Dowel Colvin[edit]

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

Unsourced biography created by editor with history of unreliable contributions, now blocked for disruptive editing - see Talk:G. E. C. Wakefield for another example. No prejudice against creating this article if any reliable sources can be found and used, but in its present state it is not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: change of plan: have redirected it to Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)#Prime_Ministers. Sorry about that. PamD 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Everyone is now for keeping, including nom (SK#1) (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G. E. C. Wakefield[edit]

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

Unsourced except for existence of his memoirs; created by an editor later blocked for disruptive editing; factual accuracy very questionable - see talk page. Eg he was not MP for West Derbyshire, another Wakefield was their MP 1950-1962. This article is too unreliable to be an asset to the encyclopedia. No prejudice against it being re-created if any reliable sources can be found and used. PamD 20:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after great improvements to the article I now !vote "Keep" - see below. PamD 15:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ it's such a mess and nothing is reliable or sourced. Just WP:TNT it I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After the clean-up no problems with notability no need for TNT now. Good job didn't have the courage myself. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed the material about the MP for West Derbyshire, Sir Edward Wakefield, 1st Baronet, who was also in the India service. I'll look more closely later today or tomorrow. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I, too, have been looking at Sir Edward Wakefield, 1st Baronet, which is also horribly unsourced. There's an impossible deal of overlap in their the biographies. Both of these individuals may be notable - G.E.C Wakefield's book is real enough - but there's some absolute nonsense in these articles. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are enough sources to establish that GECW was Chief Minister of J&K = notable. It's clear that the original editor also threw in stuff on other Wakefields, but what's now left seems solid. GECW occurs on various genealogical sites with dates 1873 - 1944 (b&d in India, not London) but I've not added this as I'm not sure to what extent Wikipedia accepts these as sources. In any event I've removed the dates 1883-1950 as unsubstantiated, apparently invented to allow for events imported from careers of other Wakefields.Eustachiusz (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as proposer - I can't formally withdraw it as there was originally support for deletion. The article is now much improved and encyclopedia-worthy after the splendid work of @Fiachra10003: and @Eustachiusz: - thanks. Perhaps I gave up on it too soon, but it just seemed an irretrievable mixture of fact and fiction/confusion. PamD 15:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Great work! @Domdeparis:, I believe if you strike your !vote, this can be withdrawn - although feel under no obligation to do so. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Matrix (franchise)#Setting. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mega City (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This article seems to have a great deal of WP:SYNTH in it as well as WP:OR. It seems pretty inaccurate, on one hand claiming that all of the Matrix takes place in one "mega city" but on the other admitting that the movies and other media make clear references to it being a simulation of modern Earth. The interview it cites as "proof" merely says that the visual design "looks like everything you’ve ever seen, but it’s from nowhere", which means it's supposed to represent an anonymous city, but not within the actual canon of the series, only to the viewer themselves.

There's a possibility that an article could be created for The Matrix (virtual world) or Universe of The Matrix but this doesn't seem like that article, it would need a total rewrite to not be a mess._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Matrix (franchise)#Setting. The article as written is a humdrum example of OR/SYNTH/fancruft, but the title is a reasonable search term. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to The Matrix (franchise)#Setting seems appropriate in this case. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Cleashindra Hall[edit]

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

No direct evidence of notability. No sign that this is any more than just a run of the mill disappearance case (about 2,300 Americans are reported missing each day). References are mostly typical news reports and routine coverage, no indication of any lasting impact, such as a change in a law or procedure, which is usually used as a yardstick for notability in these cases. Very tragic, but tragically not that uncommon. (See also, WP:MURDEROF) Bneu2013 (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom is correct that most missing person cases are not notable. However this one has continued coverage for over 20 years.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8].Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Icewhiz are right, we do individual evaluations of articles notability. Clearly here the subject has recieved coverage over a twenty year period. BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is sourced enough to be included. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. purely routine. The policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the current sourcing in the article, it easily passes WP:GNG. This topic has received significant coverage in secondary sources over the course of decades. NBC did an article on her just last year. Her disappearance was featured in an episode of the TV show Find Our Missing. Lonehexagon (talk)
Keep as per WP:SIGCOV, and the fact that coverage extends over many years. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another tragic, but routine disappearance. We can't have an article on every crime or disappearance that been featured on America's Most Wanted or the Investigation Discovery channel. It easy to say that there's been recent coverage, but you have to look at the context of that coverage. It's routine, its not as if there has been new developments in the case or its considered the crime of century.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of interest here, move on people... Unfortunately, cases like these are a dime a dozen. DGG nails it: NOT INDISCRIMINATE. --Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the standard is not whether this was "considered the crime of century" or whether the case seems "routine" to Wikipedia editors. The standards are WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCRIME, and this case has had ONGOING INDEPTH coverage, and this 1994 crime has bben covered for decades. CNN, 2009: Honors student leaves doctor's office, disappears; NBC News, 2017 [Another Mother’s Day Passes as Laurell Hall Searches for Her Daughter Cleashindra.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree with Icewhiz. Getting coverage for over 20 years proves notability. Dream Focus 18:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 21:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Jewellery Professionals and Artisans[edit]

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

Non-notable trade association. I can verify it exists, and that is pretty much it. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage found. No obvious redirects. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. Maybe one day. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists, there is no denying that. But, it is simply too soon at the moment for an article. Maybe one day there will be enough reliable sources to warrant inclusion (and, if that is the case, I would not be opposed to its creation). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3-D Studios[edit]

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

Nothing that denotes this recording firm satisfies notability or CORPDEPTH. MT Train^Talk 08:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. Seems to have been a recording studio for some local bands in California, but although some of the artists who recorded there are notable, that doesn't confer notability on the studio itself, and there doesn't seem to be any good independent coverage discussing the studio itself. Richard3120 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and above, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen L Daniel[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Low quality sources of which one is the company website. Written like an ad Cssiitcic (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly of some significance in her field, but not enough to have accumulated significant coverage in reliable sources. Mattyjohn (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added several additional sources. She has a profile on Bloomberg and has been written about internationally for her work as CFO of Black & Veatch. She has done projects in Africa as part of the Obama administration. She was also the first black woman to serve as chair of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. She has been noted as an influential person in several publications both online and in print. Easily satisfies WP:GNG ("has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Lonehexagon (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Most of the coverage is very routine and brief, however there are one or two articles that go into detail. Even if this article is kept, it is going to amount to not much more than a few sentences, as here is not much to say. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Bloomberg bio isn't the type of thing I would consider as evidence of notability; it's too much of an unfiltered directory. [9] is somewhat substantial, but not enough to meet GNG on its own. Everything else seems promotional, or is a trivial mention of her in the context of her current employer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having a profile in Bloomberg's S&P Global directory is not evidence of notability in and of itself — it's the corporate equivalent of "I'm notable because I'm on LinkedIn", which is a total non-starter of a notability argument — and not nearly enough of the other sources here are substantively about her to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete. Redirect to Black & Veatch as she is mentioned in it. Failing that, delete. I concur with Bearcat--TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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}}.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Universal Life Church. Content remains behind the redirect for selective merging into the main. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ULCO Seminary (U.S.A.)[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:AUD, and WP:BRANCH. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons a) The world is more than just cyber. ULCO may be somewhat weak online, but is strong offline; b) >21.000 followers on facebook alone are quite some weight; c) We should be careful not to discriminate against religious groups which have been in existence for decades, even since before we were born, only because they are partly old fashioned and more “at home” in real life than in cyber; d) As far as I can see the article is not commercially oriented, neither is it violating any other rules; e) Parts of ULCO (Arnulf’s) seem to be tuition-free and non-commercial in their nature. So this indicates even more that this whole thing is a notable church seminary and alumni group and not just a little fun issue. 213.184.122.100 (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An organization being around for decades DOES NOT equal notability. They need significant national media coverage at a minimum. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Father Rahim, the Dean of ULCO’s Arnulf Seminary is not unknown, as is the church. See here or here or here. They are a super liberal church, having been around for decades with ULCO having >21.000 followers online and the church behind >1.2 mio. followers. That’s not nothing ;-) 213.184.122.100 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles look self-authored. Show me independent news sources. Major news publications such as the Washington Post or the New York Times. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An institution of higher education, and we have normally considered all such to warrant an article in WP, unless there is some special reason. (The school does not award formal degrees, but its courses lead to ecclesiastical ordination by its church, which is more or less the equivalent.) It is certainly true that there are cases where a separate article is justified, but the amount of information is so little that a combination article is preferred according to one of the more realistic provisions of WP:N, and we use this to avoid making articles for individual components of most schools except the largest and most famous, because there is generally little to say except directory information. But this is not such a division, but rather the educational institution under control of the church, just as other religion-bases tertiary institutions are of their churches. I am unclear why they label themselves as an alumni group--it's s true we do nto ordinarily make articles for alumni associations, but this seems to be a combination pf an alumni association and a college. It's well known that the Universal Life Church does things a little less formally than most such US organizations. This is not e reason for deleting, but for being flexible and keeping. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This organization is not the Universal Life Church, the notability of which is not in doubt (weather it structurally makes sense to recognize it as existing in a substantial way has of couse gone through much debate). The school guidelines exist for schools that actually exist and run standard courses. It is not a free grant of notability to every diploma mill on the face of the planet, and this is a diploma mill par excelence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Withdrawal due to defamatory statements in this discussion: I am the author of this article. To call an alumni group and a network of schools which only accepts postgrad university students for the most part tuition-free (Arnulf’s) a “diploma mill par excelence” is a disgrace and defamation in its worst form, especially when the slander obviously comes from a Mormon, a faith which is in itself under discussion due to different issues. Yes, there are ULC-affiliated groups (the ULC itself is a notable church, even if you dislike its unconventional approach) to whom this may apply. Here, this is not one of them. To call this very institution of all things names is shocking and makes me ask for deletion due to malicious attacks instead of a real neutral discussion. I will delete the content as far as I can as a user and ask someone who is in charge to delete the article from Wikipedia immediately. ULCO and Arnulf’s are too precious to have their dignity hurt in such a digusting and sad way. I don’t want to see this end in a lible action in court due to traducement of a religious organization. 213.184.122.101 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as hard as it is to follow what this article is about ("It's the ULCO", "It's the ULC Theological Seminary", "It's an alumni group", "it's a school", "Arnwulf is a spin-off of the ULC", "ULCO is for tuition-based matters, but Arnulf's is tuition-free, but criticism of ULCO is somehow an attack on Arnwulf. Online sources are linking ULCO and Arnwulf to specifically Christian matters, ULC is not a specifically Christian church. What online references were in the article before the attempted blanking by an IP user purporting to be the article creator do not mention ULCO, and are merely about the ULC (and the use of the offline references suggest they would be similarly focused on the ULC.) We're lacking any real sign that there's anything there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted the blanking. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - DELETE IMMEDIATELY. It was no blanking but a radical shortening. As far as I was told, it is my right to use Wikipedia without an account. I am the author of the article, and having been experiencing the vicious discussion style here I kindly request for an immediate deletion of the article. I am not familiar with Wikipedia but would never have expected that criminal proceedings due to traducement of a religious organization could be the result of a discussion here, especially since some truly faithful people who asked me to help them with the Wikipedia do not feel amused at all about being ridiculed. Don’t let us forget that we discuss a matter of faith where words can insult people badly. So there was never a blanking, just a radical shortening, and as the author I request an immediate deletion of the topic. It was my naive idea to believe that the topic would be welcome here. Now I learnt that the opposite is the fact. So, please set an end to this nonsense before more religious feelings get hurt and delete the article immediately, please. Be blessed. 190.106.130.39 (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to use Wikipedia without an account, but when you claim to be the account user who created this article, we don't have a way to verify that unless you log into the account to make your comments. As for deletion of the article, had you blanked it or otherwise asked for deletion before this discussion had been started, it might have qualified for a speedy deletion... but given that this discussion has been started and some reasonable keep votes have been made, it cannot be speedy deleted on this basis. You seem to be suggesting legal threats, please read our "no legal threats" policy. Some of the threats you claim are ludicrous, there's no way even if inaccurate that such a statement would be a criminal concern, for a US-based contributor on a US projects - and anyway, deleting the article would not delete this discussion page, where the supposedly offending remark is, and thus do nothing to avoid any lawsuit or charges. Any concern you have about "religious feelings" might be aimed best at whoever it was who went after an editor for being LDS. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry IP, but as everyone can see I am the author of the entry which is being discussed here. Of course I believe this institution is reputable and notable. Ok, the world of these churches is somewhat confusing, especially since the ULC has an abundance of spin-offs, officialy accepted ones, tolerated ones and completely “independent” ones. Now why did I write this entry? Simply because I know, thanks to a family member (who is a journalist), what is going on there. Yes, the ULC is a somewhat weird church. But it is a church which has been allowed to hold course studies, since 1974 even with a legal blessing. Some other spin-offs fought similar legal fights and hold the same right - and then there are those who are only into making money. Now, what is ULCO Seminary (U.S.A.)? It is a hub. A meeting point for students, postgrads and alumni of ULC (and legally clean) ULC spin-offs. A place where the “real” students of valid course studies meet and where courses, meetings etc. are coordinated and organized, all non-commercially and self-organized. ULCO Seminary (U.S.A.) is therefore not one school or one education provider, it is a self-governed umbrella organization which brings all respectable students from within the chaotic ULC world together. This is also the reason why their external picture a little bit confusing and there is not much coordination or money to provide a glamorous facade. However, more than 20.000 people on their facebook site are an indication that they are not what we could call small. They also keep their house clean and cast everybody out who is just a “title hunter” with one of the more shady ULC spin-offs. Some of the reputable spin-offs are even tuition-free and grant access only to people with a university degree. Again, the ULC-world is colorful, and ULCO Seminary (U.S.A.) is “home” of the reputable students at the notable ULC and/or its reputable spin-offs. So the whole endeavor is reputable. If it is notable according to the Wikipedia rules is another question. I would say yes. Whatever the IP wanted to achieve here is a little bit confusing. But one thing is correct; we are talking here about faith issues, so let us be careful with the words we use. Even a weird church like the ULC and its more serious spin-offs are churches. We should keep this in mind. Klaus Bells (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Universal Life Church. They've operated a diploma/ordination mill for decades (Hunter S. Thompson received his infamous doctorate from them), but I'm not sure what this group (called an "alumni association", and looking like a corporate subsidiary of the Church that exists for legal purposes) is even supposed to be; the refs appear to be about the Universal Life Church. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Universal Life Church I can't find anything more about them than directory information in books, and the straight GHits aren't exactly an improvement, even though I left off the "(USA)". Probably some of this material isn't duplicated in the main article. Blatantly not notable in its own right, however. Mangoe (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evidently an alumni group which is neither notable nor of public interest. Offering no detectable services, to find in directories and social media with just some internal/private talk, only not notable matters are being posted. Merging with or redirecting to Universal Life Church seems to be inappropriate as this alumni thing has no reputable/reliable ties to this freak church. 185.32.222.13 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. This whole thing is nothing but a small and negligible alumni group of one or more churches and a waste of time to discuss their notability ;-)) Universal Life Church has obviously legal or not so official copy-cats using their name. So to which of these is this alumni group connected to. Only one? Ten? Thirty? A million? ;-) They may be ok, they may be crap, what they definitely are: not notable. Significance for Wikipedia not apparent. Significance for anyone? Not apparent. Sorry guys, Wikipedia is above your head :-o Elalma (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passed WP:GNG. What the subject is or isn't doesn't matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to what sources make you feel that way, @Walter Görlitz:? Because I'm not seeing sources in the ULCO Seminary that live up to that. Source on the ULC or on the Christian Universal Life Church, yes, but not on this organization. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @NatGertler: I notice you have not challenged any of the non-policy-based !votes, when it's for delete. Religion in North America and Directory of departments and programs of religious studies in North America are enough for me. Also, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Walter Görlitz: See WP:OUTCOMES#Companies_and_organizations, and no personal attacks, please. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Me-123567-Me: There was no personal attack. Noticing an editor's behaviour is, while not commenting on content is inspecting motives. I'm fine standing on my earlier ~Vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Except you didn't "notice an editor's behaviour"; rather, you made up some crap about an editor, seemingly because you didn't like being asked a reasonable question. As the editor about whom you made up said crap, I can tell you it's not appreciated. What would be appreciated, however, is if you answered the question about what you found in the sources you are using as the basis for your WP:GNG claim, so that I can reconsider my !vote if there is real reason to. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict)"I notice you have not challenged any of the non-policy-based !votes, when it's for delete." is a glorious combination of irrelevant, snide, and false (check my post of 21:53, 3 March 2018.) The two sources you list appear in the article to be referencing information about Arnulf, not about ULCO. Have you checked those sources to see if they cover ULCO? I just tried using Google Book Search to check that book, and it got no results, but Google Book Search is spotty. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is about schools, not alumni organizations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd appreciate you clarifying what the subject actually is, as I'm not 100% sure at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please. Excuse my English, please. I use the deepl. com translator because my English is not so good. But I can help to clarify the situation, because I am a ULCO alumni myself and have learned that a discussion is going on here. I studied at a seminar of a Christian secession of the ULC in my native language (subsoil because where I am, apostasy is severely punished) and I am still happy with it today. But of course there are also funny ULC churches. That's why there is an alumni group for seriouly ULC alumni, where you can still exchange information worldwide, even when your education is over. ULCO does not belong either to ULC or to any of its separate churches. It is an alumni organization of volunteers for volunteers. Now I don't know if this is relevant for Wikipedia. But our mailing list alone is huge and on Facebook we Alumni and friends are as far as I know, with about 22000 people. I don't know if this is venerable enough for Wikipedia. But as an affected person, I can say that I was always well treated, satisfied and happy to remember my seminars. This is how others do it and that's why there is the Alumni Group ULCO. But it's all self-organized and thus slightly chaoticly. My wish would be that we are not mistaken for lunatics just because we have learned something from churches schools that are not mainline churches. We are also people and freedom of faith applies to those who are chaotic and organized themselves. As someone in a country where freedom of religion is not guaranteed, I know what I am talking about. Thank you for your attention and may the Lord bless you and Wikipedia. 2001:AC8:26:4:102:239:0:A9 (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good heavens! An endless discussion because of an alumni group? Really? As far as I can see this specific group is neither dangerous nor questionable. Therefore I support Walter Görlitz. Other users in this discussion explained convincingly what this group is about. But more than that, stop wasting time with such minor matters and religion bashing. Religious freedom includes belonging to any kind of church, even weird ones. Btw., merging with Universal Life Church seems not to be an option as this group is open to different branches of this religious community. So merging would be sort of connecting two institutions that may or may not be closely related. But we’re here not for guessing or creating theories. Cheers. OnSpeech (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— OnSpeech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Walter Görlitz pls. delete this claim. I am not a SPA, however rather new to the English Wikipedia. A rainy day off makes me work on religious topics. It would be nice if you could delete the SPA claims since I don’t feel well with it. Thank you and God bless. OnSpeech (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't remove or strike it. You have few edits to the English project. The rules for other projects are quite different to the rules for ours. I am simply pointing out your brief history on the English project to the closing administrator. Transparency is the most important thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept the rules. I have been on Wikipedia projects sporadically for quite a while, but ok. However, I feel not well with this situation and also not with reverting my friendly two topics on your talk page. Especially the entry about the one word in the Reformation topic is important to me. I just want to use a rainy day off in Germany to do some edits on religious topics in the EN WP. Would be nice to get support or guidance instead of having friendly messages deleted. God bless OnSpeech (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Universal Life Church - this is entirely a tempest in a teapot, a non-notable "organization" subordinate (??) to a border-line notable "organization". A complete mess with requests from representatives of the "organizations" to delete. The only real choices are to delete or to merge a line or two into Universal Life Church. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I live in orthodox country; attended theology class (evangelical) when was in the US for six months. We discuss with my friends from that time that here is discussion. My school was friends with ULCO like you are member of other association. I here by testify that ULCO is alumni association with members that come from various school. It is n o t [not!) Universal Life Church, some may be but far far not all. Free group students from many UL church dennominations. We do not need having Wikipedia. We use and meet and exchange. That’s it. Do not know what should help be on Wikipedia? Delete is a good idea. 87.239.248.37 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: This user has no other contributions outside this discussion. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Universal Life Church. The drama above is quite incomprehensible. A one-paragraph article about an alumni organization? It's obvious that this belongs into the main article. Sandstein 22:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Coulter[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFOOTY per the only included source which indicates he sat on the bench for a single A-league game. Certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. Kb.au (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG --SuperJew (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. And as he's never played a game, seems unlikely he'll meet these guidelines anytime soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:TOOSOON.Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the relevant policies as stated by others. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is a (potential) case of WP:TOOSOON and, as others have stated, fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Maurer[edit]

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

Non-notable news anchor. I had a look around for sources and aside from her reports at KEZI that are by her (and not about her), I really couldn't find anything that would allow me to improve the article. I therefore have to conclude it's unsalvageable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - every source I could find beyond those already in the article were by her, not about her. Regarding those already in the article, there are not multiple, independent, reliable sources that give in-depth information about the topic. Fails GNG, WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NMODEL. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local news anchors are mainly not notable.03:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy GNG. With that said, no doubt that she is a news anchor. As Ritchie said, the pieces with her name in them just tend to be written by her, rather than about her (part of the job of a news reporter). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Comparison of photo gallery software. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zenphoto[edit]

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

No claim of notability and no independent references. I don't see a speedy deletion that applies, and as the page has been deleted before it's ineligible for PROD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Power~enwiki G4 likely applies...why not just do that? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the citations and ongoing discussion already at "talk:Zenphoto." Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also review "talk:Coppermine Photo Gallery." Coppermine Photo Gallery was also voted to be kept on Wikipedia after a deletion nomination, despite being less popular and less notable in the USA than Zenphoto is. If Zenphoto is not notable enough, then several other articles on both English Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia would also need to be deleted for consistency. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.zenphoto.org/news/articles-about-zenphoto/ Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few things: 1.) Existence in other languages is meaningless. Notability criteria is not shared among all WMF projects but even if it were, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. 2.) The idea that a carefully curated selection of articles "about" ZenPhoto, as picked by ZenPhoto would somehow equate to notability is laughable at best. Okay after reading that list, it really is laughable and almost entirely blogs. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ We don't do consistency; but for on-the-face-of-it-independent coverage you could point to a half-page review here: John Lewell (26 August 2011). Digital Photography for Next to Nothing: Free and Low Cost Hardware and Software to Help You Shoot Like a Pro. John Wiley & Sons. p. 309. ISBN 978-0-470-97058-4. and a short para is here: Noyster (talk), 12:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- People are evidently not impressed by the available sourcing here; but better than Delete would be Redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software : Noyster (talk), 18:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Based on what's in the article now, this would qualify for WP:A7. My own searching failed to find any WP:RS. As for Coppermine, see WP:Articles for deletion/Coppermine Photo Gallery (2nd nomination) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of photo gallery software per Noyster and WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Result founded on Google. But not yet notable. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 16:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article at present does not have a single reference. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A classic argument to avoid: Noyster (talk), 13:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, yes, but WP:RUBBISH also says, Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate its notability, but asserting that an article "needs improvement, not deletion" is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existence of other stuff holds no weight here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danica Johnson[edit]

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

Fails GNG, claim to fame seems to be her role in a non-notable film. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON as only one minor role in film Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One role? Hardly! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, far, far too soon. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.O.R.E. The Game[edit]

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

Non-notable video game, fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage or claims to significance, and WP:TOOSOON given the release is in Q4 2018.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SamHolt6. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little coverage found in a search to establish notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vahdat Rahimi[edit]

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

Plainly promotional work on a musician about whom I can find no reliable sources, though admittedly I may not know where to look. Created by a sockpuppet, I set about copyediting their atrocious prose but realized that if I were to remove all the undue promotion and fluff about plainly non-notable family members, I would be left with only an infobox. Page was previously deleted WP:G7 which I don't understand (courtesy ping AustralianRupert). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a continuation of the sockmaster's efforts to promote RadioJavan. Cabayi (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any coverage in RS. Violation of WP:PROMO as stated above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: G'day, the page was deleted as G7 as the author blanked it at 23:38 UTC on 1 March 2018, after which it was tagged for speedy deletion. Happy to take feedback if you can elaborate about your concerns about that deletion, but it seemed right to me at the time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Garo[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable musician who fails WP:NMUSIC and has not won major awards. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it fails WP:NMUSIC. She has yet to publish anything, and hasn't really done anything notable. Sparkyb10123 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON at best. I went ahead and removed the references to Facebook and gmail(?). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A junior performer who has not yet become notable. Awards reflect her junior status. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Amateur Subbuteo Players Association[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. The best I could find was this source, which isn't enough to demonstrate notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and with insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 21:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North South Travel[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, with most results showing a Vancouver-based firm with the same name. Searches also show it's been created by an ex-employee. MT Train^Talk 12:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A small charity with 1 paid member of staff and volunteers. No refs in the article. Szzuk (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NST Development Trust may be notable but their travel agency isn't. Promotional. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only "source" is a promotional brochure. At this time, it fails GNG. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lichtenberg[edit]

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

Not yet notable. Does not pass GNG or Snooker WikiProject notability guidelines. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I doubt the 2016 win of the German Amateur Championship (snooker) brings automatic notability, but it might have generated enaugh press that together with the recent U21 win there might be enaugh to pass GNG. Somebody who knows more where to look for RS in that field might be able to dig something up. Agathoclea (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extremely minor tournament in the snooker world. It's an amateur tournament in a country that isn't really into snooker - count the number of Germans in the current Snooker World Rankings, just one in the list of those with a ranking (131 players from around the world) and he's ranked 129th. So we have an article about the tournament (German Amateur Championship (snooker)) but we don't do articles about each year's contest. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, sufficient press coverage both for winning the U21 European Championships and for the decision to allow him to become pro despite the German association not being a member of the correct body for that [10]. —Kusma (t·c) 10:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires multiple secondary sources discussing the subject in-depth. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although he does not yet pass GNG, we know with certainty that he will do so at the beginning of the 2018/19 season, as a member of the main tour, so deleting the article and then re-writing it in June would only be an inconvenience in my opinion. As we know it will need to be here in June, we may as well keep it up. Montgomery15 (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact opposite of our policy WP:CRYSTAL. Between now and then he might discover religion, a gold mine at the end of his garden or break both his arms and never play a competitive match. Article can be restored when he is notable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It is unclear why a speedy delete was declined or why there are two keep votes here. Utterly non notable snooker player at this time. One ref in the article which doesn't mention him. A paid for tag. His top break is just 109. Szzuk (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. it's WP:SNOWing. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 15:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Antonov An-26 crash[edit]

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

Non-notable military accident. Military aviation accidents are NON notable unless by dint of secondary notability. Also WP:NOTNEWS, as wikipedia is not a newspaper or repository of articles on every little hiccough in military aviation Petebutt (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. Sario528 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG - extremely wide coverage. High casualty count, including a maj. General.. The thing to remember about AIRCRASH is that it is an essay, not policy, and that while in general it is correct in the rough triage (civil airline yes, military no) - but often is wrong on "edge cases" (e.g. high casualty military crashes, or conversely write-offs of old civil planes flying transport with no casualties). In this case, the AN-26 was doing an international passenger flight, including a senior military figure on board.Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. 36 people dead, global news headlines, etc. etc. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very tragic and notable event. SportingFlyer talk 15:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep massive news coverage which is likely to last some time, due to high casualties and the tragic death of Major-General Vladimir Yeremeyev. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to death toll at least, let alone other factors. Crashes with two-digit casualties don't happen that often. Brandmeister^talk 16:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, wide coverage and significant fatality count. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very large numbers of deaths and significant coverage in RS. WP:SNOW. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mis-nominated, surely. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody is confident that this is verifiable. Sandstein 09:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shanqolow[edit]

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

Our next dubious Somali placename appears to have its origins in a UN report; the link in the article is dead but I found this story which contains a passing reference and which is reasonably likely to be a duplicate. The problem is that the story implies that Shanqolow is a neighborhood or something similar within Baardheere, not a town unto itself. And that is the only substantial information I found: geonames does not acknowledge the place at all. I'm dubious about redirecting this to Baardheere since there's no discussion of neighborhoods or the like, and it appears that the only place one would come across the name, the story I linked to, already tells you all we know. Mangoe (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~"Shanqolow" sounds curiously similar to Shánkala. My guess is that the linked story provided by Mangoe is based on an Ethiopian source referring pejoratively to Somali opponents.~~ 37.117.118.138 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Visible here as Shongolou, near Balan Baasha (cf. Baalan Baasha in the article) . 37.117.118.138 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely plausible: the name from openstreetmap is in geonames (which, after all, is probably where they got it), and while there's no settlement there now, there are some signs there once was (the typical round enclosures, but no buildings). The question is, can we put this all together and say that they are two names for the same place, mentioned as having such-and-such fighting, and such-and-such a location, but it has need destroyed? there's a fair bit of synthesis going on there. Mangoe (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say two different Latin transliterations rather than names. The original name is شنقلو, which is likely to be the "village of Shenqlou in the Islamic state of Qizu" mentioned by jihadist sources (e.g. قرية شنقلو بولاية قيذو الإسلامية). So we have 1) a place whose name may be spelled as Shanqulow or Shongolou in English, which is marked near Balan Baasha on a reliable map (in the Bay district, not in the Gedo district, as asserted in the article), 2) the (same?) Shanqulow place where the clashes mentioned in the linked source took place. There are some bits of encyclopedic information here. A stub providing useful links may be better than nothing. 37.117.118.138 (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All we can achieve is go down the rabbit hole of doing original research, I am inclined to believe this fails WP:V, but I am not certain. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V. As I've said before, we have no obligation to be all-inclusive. We do, however, have an obligation to be verifiably correct. If we can't meet WP:V, we should skip it entirely. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Minichiello. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Biviano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

OK, this is way beyond my comfort zone. Plenty of overblown celeb/gossip magazine coverage (plus I removed half a dozen Daily Mail refs), but is this lady notable beyond throwing expensive parties? BLP people please assess. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. all the coverage mentions her as wife of her notable husband. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps redirect to WAG Nation, although as a short running cable TV programme I'm not sure that that is particularly notable either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: So what are her significant accomplishments? This The Daily Telegraph article cites her "prowess within the fashion industry and coveted eponymous shoe collection" [11], but gives zero details, and all of the material I'm seeing about her is about her marriage to Anthony Minichiello and her appearance on WAG Nation. If there are no significant accomplishments, I'm leaning Redirect to Anthony Minichiello (or possibly to WAG Nation). SunChaser (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I am not 100% sure as to where, but I am leaning towards Anthony Minichiello. One thing I can say though, is that the Daily Mail sure seems to love writing about/mentioning her. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nimba Creations[edit]

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

No reliable sources to indicate notability. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability in the article. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of significance, possible A7 Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No ref, no assertion of notability. Promotional. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WekaIO[edit]

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

Mildly promotional article about a non-notable company that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is entirely made up of press releases and similar. Article created by a clear COI (name of company as username). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant violation of WP:PROMO combined with the lack of indication of notability. Rentier (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional. Sources are mostly press releases. Too soon. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Triplett[edit]

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

The other King County Executive who doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. The WP:BLP notice has been up since 2013 and no one has touched it. SportingFlyer talk 08:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

based on current content, delete: most of it is about the circumstances of his election, and no county exec can be presumed notable. If he does something that attracts more than local notice, an article could be recreated. Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County executives do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist, but the sourcing here isn't adequate to get him over the bar that he would actually have to clear: it's stacked entirely onto a mix of primary sources and a smattering of the purely local media coverage that would simply be expected to exist for any county executive. Nothing here demonstrates that he's a special case over and above most other county executives who don't have Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insilico TechServices[edit]

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

A very new company with no evidence of any notability. Its own website, directory listing, own press releases and several refs attesting to the receipt of a minor award (and a quote from Shakespeare!) make u the refs.None of this gets anywhere close to WP:GNG. Searches don't yield anything illuminating. Maybe far, far WP:TOOSOON but certainly not a notable compay yet. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company is new no doubt but the reason I created the page is because it's selected in the list of top 10 among 3000+ startups in India by ELECRAMA, which is one of the biggest conference in the world for electrical and electronics equipment space. More than 120 countries are participating in the conference and it's an initiative by the Govt. of India. more about ELECRAMA at their site https://elecrama.com. The press releases quoted are from Republic TV, which is the highest viewed English news channel in India. That's the reason I took the initiative of creating the page as I see Insilico as one of the most promising startups now in India. Finally Smart Lighting, for which they have come to limelight is one of the most significant socially impactful solutions to have come out from the startup fraternity in India. The news coverage by Republic TV talks at lengths about the impact of such a solution. saolide 8 March 2018

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Non-notable startup.Corp-spam.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaafar Al Ghazal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician. The previous AfD closed as no consensus largely because the former nominator didn't present a case and focused on bad formatting. All the sourcing here is crap: insignificant coverage on niche sites and places to download music. Singer is not significant in the Arab world, and is essentially using the English Wikipedia to advertise based on the assumption that we aren't able to read the sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear TonyBallioni I created this article. It meets the requirements of the English Wikipedia. And a pre-nominated for the discussion of deletion and the vote of the administrators to keep. There is no need to nominate for discussion deletion again.--IamIRAQI (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 18 references on the first sentence saying this person is a singer songwriter, all of which are lyric sites or fan/self published sites. No attempt to establish notability despite the ref dump, and I'm not finding anything else. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 07:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sound Horizon. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 07:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aramary[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable musician who abandoned the field years ago. Possible redirect to Sound Horizon. Quis separabit? 04:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A lot of the news hits are in Japanese, and the translator doesn't appear to do her justice, so am fine with a redirect. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lloyd (actor)[edit]

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

A directory-like listing with no encyclopedically relevant prose. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Significant RS coverage not found. Award listed is not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete total failure of the relevant notability guidelines. It is junk articles like this that give Wikipedia a bad name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Personally I think this is more or less A7 material, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet WP:GNG based on sources provided nor any other notability guideline I can think of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bankex[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions / WP:SPIP. Likely COI / UPE; pls see User_talk:Sean_zuk#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia;_paid_editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Objection, to the proposal, and the nomination
This article was listed for consideration for deletion with an inappropriate quotation, after significant improvement and addition of references, by an editor who seems to be proud of pushing articles for deletion:

(from their own talk page: "Deletionism" - I'm working towards a Deletionist's Cross of the Iron Cross.

This kind of "article vendetta" approach is not funny, is contrary to Wikipedia's professed spirit, and represents someone working out their personal issues, and potentially throwing away both valid content and other folk's hard work. Notably no attempt has been made to make any constructive suggestions on the Talk page of the article, in fact the Talk page has not even been brought into being.

The quoted reason is: "A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found" - but this is a notice that was posted *by the same user* when the article was *two lines long*, with no structure, categorization or citation. It is simply ridiculous to now post such a notice on a more mature article, which has now been worked on on all those points.

The request to consider deletion also refers to one user and some question about them, but no user owns an article, and this has nothing to do with the more developed piece.

Further, some sources are offered, as a hint, I suppose, but Wikipedia does not work only from that very short list. In a new and fast moving area such as "Fintech" it is especially absurd not to source widely, by that logic much of the ever-growing online world would be missed until already "big." Overall, this nomination is unfair and improper, as it is clear from even a quick read that the company in question, and its technology, offer a potentially important advance in the world of blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Having vented that, in fairness I should go and try to source something myself. 62.148.0.114 (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diff for your unfounded claim of the nom being a fascist deletionist? Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an occasional visitor, so not sure what a "diff" is, but having read the article, put forward an improvement, and been surprised at a proposal to delete, I followed the User Page link, and found: "Deletionism". For my two cents worth, the main issue is that no attempt was made by this editor Coffman to improve, or suggest improvements, and no recognition was given to various already-done improvements, whereas the quoted policy says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." 109.252.27.29 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I got the impression from your comment that it was on his user talk page rather than a page with a clear humor tag. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I missed the humour tag. But I think that you confused me with a previous poster. I'm just a guy in a café who was reading about this company - it is not mentioned, but they did an Initial Coin Offering for 20+ MUSD last year - looked them up, added something, and followed the links. I understand your point, but still, I don't think that deleting real-life content (there is no doubt the company and its technology exist) is something to do lightly. This sort of in-joking is one of the things which sometimes puts people off joining Wikipedia (says the occasional editor, here and at home). I made no claims of Nazism or any similar thing (and I see the other editor is something of a specialist in countering that vicious area, so I would be especially sensitive around that.109.252.27.29 (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise you register an account. I assumed you were the same person. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The subject is not notable, the company is not the subject of multiple, reliable, in-depth independent sources. This cannot be fixed or 'improved', since it is not a content or formatting issue. Accusing the nom of being a deletionist nazi and whinging about perceived injustice is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide something. Probably the COI / UPE issue. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, it has 6 different references, there are thousands, at least, of Wikipedia articles with zero to <6. Not everyone has BBC or NYT coverage. And is it not better, in debate, to avoid jargon like COI and UPE. I sse a humour heading on your own page, so I hope you take this in the same spirit. Industry coverage and a good deal of real money says this company and its technological innovation have something going, and it seems to be potentially important.

The place is closing, so a closing comment - Prince of Thieves, I see one of your flags on your page is as "Advisor" - so why not suggest something positive about the page. For myself, I know a little of the topic of bitcoin and similar from a business aspect, but maybe the article would work better if it were less technical, or more explanatory? I really think you're being too strict on your test of notability, which would also see going out of the encyclopedia almost all articles on sports stars below national level, many books and games (only covered in specialist magazines), and so on. You've over 1500 edits, the other editor involved over 70000!, surely there are some constructive suggestions? G'night! 109.252.27.29 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that four of those sources are borderline and should never be used on Wikipedia to show notability. The Huffington Post is considered unreliable, this is explained somewhere by DGG, basically it has little editorial integrity. Goldbitcoin.org, newsbtc.com and cryptotimes.org are all dubious industry sources, with no clear editorial integrity, and a great deal of published press releases and tabloid type coverage (or hype). This leaves a short mention in Financial IT and an almost unrelated article in the Daily Telegraph. This is not substantial in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Therefore delete. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm back to this, after some days of "real life" and I get the points above, but I think this article has enough sourcing and substance to stay and be improved. Various people have already worked on it. Matter of fact, what percentage of Wikipedia is built that way, by unregistered users "putting a few bricks in the wall"? It can always be reviewed again in say 6 months. And to the next commentator- no it's not "highly promotional". Check out a few press releases, much more pushy. I can't comment deeply on the technology but the idea seems to be seen as new by industry figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.27.29 (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it can be deleted and then maybe recreated in six months. You clearly have no concept about what is promotional, almost the entire article is made up of primary sourced technological hype speak. and things like Users are able to keep close track of various assets and verify their condition instantly, which could reduce the cost of asset valuation, speed up transations, and improve market liquidity.. so yes this is bad. If you want to work on something with a little leeway, how about something that isn't a fintech startup? The standards for corporations are vastly more difficult to pass, than those on say on villages or sports players. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly promotional, routine press for a new startup. They seem think that their protocol for financial smart contracts, backed by the blockchain ledger, seems to be something they invented, given the primary work was done, 5 maybe 7 years ago. scope_creep (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources for the notability of a company.There is no point comparing with other articles, since we admittedly have thousands of articles from earlier periods where the guidelines were applied erratically, and people here less vigilant. Further, the general rules for notability are in practice applied differently for different subjects, and their relationship with the special rules is different. Whether we should cover athletes as widely as we do is possibly a little dubious, but at present the consensus is that we do. That we apply the rules strictly to organizations is also the clear practice,and is especially motivated by the need to discourage promotionalism , by removing articles about minor firms for which their is no encyclopedic material possible except their advertising. The Huffington Post is variable: their news articles are written by staff and apparently edited, but they show unmistakable bias. Their columns and features and blogs are written by the authors, and represent their views only. Between the bias and the lack of control, there isn;t much that is of use to an encyclopedia. (I do like and sometimes read the HP--but I wouldn't use it as a source here except in special circumstances.) DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional, weak sourcing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - has the original author anything to say? 83.220.236.220 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. All these IPs look like 1 person as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has some coverage, like Bloomberg and IT news sites. And many coin sites even if some are a bit PRish. I would not call it highly promotional, feels rather dry. And stop bashing IP contributors. In big cities a few major ISPs dominate but similar IP does not mean same person nor that people know each other! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.220.239.61 (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate - this tackles a whole new concept (well-referenced within the crypto world), not 5-7 years old (that's proof of -work and -stake), referenced by Bloomberg (a new application of the concept) and Financial IT. The article has improved a good deal since the admittedly poor start, and this should surely be encouraged?

A couple of the points above addressed: 1) All one person? On this page? Doesn't look like it in terms of content or style. Likewise (use any IP checking tool), the article has been worked on from multiple locations / countries. Is the spamming of WP so bad that suspicion is default? What happened to AGF? 2) Paid or CoI - if that first article was paid for, they must be the most incompetent paid agents ever. Maybe someone's overenthusiastic friend. 3) Differing standards - yes, understood. WP is split between "every hamlet or crossroads" and minor sportspeople and actors versus deep testing of corporations. But an area like cryptocurrency needs to be tested against a standard relevant to an emerging area; compare articles in relevant categories, maybe?

37.186.230.180 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standards are set in policy by the community, right now they are making the requirements for companies like this scricter, but I am sure the quality will steadily improve. I personally think that IP editors are automatically under suspicion, but so are new editors at AfD, this is because of routine paid/COI editors breaking all the rules to try and keep their articles by hook and crook. If this is deleted or draftified then additional sources may become available if this company becomes better covered. However there is a general consensus that companies need to be subject to stricter guidelines than villages, to maintain the quality of the project by protecting against promotional articles. (See WP:PROMO). Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the courtesy of a reply. If the community is really unsure yet, I like this idea of Incubate or, lovely word, draftification. It captures the good, in some visible way. I've made several hundred edits over the years, mostly on my mobile, mostly small fixes, but I've been through this AfD process before too, twice, one article survived, one was deleted. 37.186.230.180 (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as edits are made to the draft at least every six months you can work on it until it becomes notable, if that happens. I suggest that you save a copy of the text now though because I can't guarantee the closer will move this to draft/user-space. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And so again, from home. Thanks for the hint. I did not mean to end up as "nanny" or incubator, but, to quote another peninsula, que sera sera. I will at least take a copy. But, as I like a challenge, I will try to add a reference or two more as well. I spent some time on the commute scanning "crypto space" within Wikipedia, this article is far from the weakest, and maybe there is a chance yet for Keep. Of course with even Google sceptical about these "new currencies" perhaps there will be fewer articles in time. Meantime, do try to have some faith. Is the editing now so tough, against the tide of bad material? I actually thought that this article's improvement was a sign of right thinking, though maybe some did have some, as they say, prior acquaintance, as I see several hands were Russian, where this Bankex's devops centre is. Grazie, Prince of Thieves from Island. 217.133.56.206 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neither side of this discussion has policy on their side and not seeing any opinion's changing J04n(talk page) 11:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governorship of Phil Murphy[edit]

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

TOO SOON. He just started. All of the other articles about U.S. governorships are high profile governorships where the officeholder had 2+ terms. Furthermore, they sought, are seeking, or are speculated to seek the Presidency. Most are also high profile individuals that are or are almost household names. There are plenty of other governorships that are more notable than this and don't have an article yet. I do think we should have more of these articles, but I don't see why we can't cover this particular governorship in the Phil Murphy and Government of New Jersey pages. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Nomination is completely based in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It suggests that there "should be more of these articles" and that same time it should be merged/re-directed to into another. It cites comparisons and contrasts that do not consider the merits of the article in and of itself and creates criteria that are not policy based, but expresses non-objective personal beliefs/preference. The cited essay TOO SOON, simply says: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." and is not applicable here: the article is properly sourced, so clearly that is not the case here. It easily fulfills Wikipedia:Verifiability.Djflem (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article, as it exists, provides dozens of reliable and verifiable sources about the Governorship of Phil Murphy; the notability standard is clearly satisfied here. There is no requirement that some number of terms or years must be served before such an article may be created. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge- to Phil Murphy. It is WP:TOOSOON, the guy has only been governor for one month, he really hasn't done much yet. What the article actually describes is his campaign platform, not what he has actually done. Most of this is already covered in the Phil Murphy article. If I were to remove all the campaign promises from the article, we'd be left with only a few sentences about what he has actually accomplished. Maybe a year or two from now when we start running out of room at the Phil Murphy article it may become appropriate to spin this out.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The essay WP:TOOSOON, simply says: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." Which part is being cited? Sources do exist and all info is paases Wikipedia:Verifiability.Djflem (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it, Phil Murphy has not actually done much of anything yet. The sources you are using are about his campaign promises, not what he has done. If we remove all the campaign promises from the article we have three sentences. "On January 29, 2018, Murphy signed an executive order reinstating New Jersey back into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.In February 2018 he signed legislation committing New Jersey to the Paris Agreement. In February 2018, Murphy signed his first piece of legislation, the restoration of $7.5 millon annual funding for Planned Parenthood, which had been cut early in the Christie administration." Those three sentences can be easily covered in the Phil Murphy article.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not getting it:

1. When responding to my posts REFRAIN from unsolicited, uninformed, uninteresting, useless statements such as "what you know", "what you should know", "what you would do", "what you like", "what you think", "you're not getting it" and other similar detritus, as you have done here and elsewhere). If you expect Wikipedia:Civility, show it.

2. One doesn't get to cherry-pick and choose which sourced verifiable material is valid for convenience purposes, so why are you doing that?Djflem (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge - Keep since article is a relevant split of the parent article (it contains information which could not be treated to such an extent in the parent article, et cetera), merge important details because there's currently only one sentence about the governorship in the parent article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge based on a review of what we have in Wikipedia so far, it doesn't appear governorships are presumptively notable, and there aren't any articles about his governorship as a whole, or why the fact he was governor is notable. SportingFlyer talk 04:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:other stuff exists argument are not really validDjflem (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact all other governorships on this site are from highly notable governors is a really interesting point, I think. There's a lot of sources, but I don't actually think his governance is notable enough for a stand-alone article, especially since it's only been a month, and because there's a ton of New Jersey political fancruft on this site to begin with. I can't really put my finger on it, though. Feels WP:SPIPpy, especially because so many of the references are WP:TOOSOON "He says he will sign..." SportingFlyer talk 08:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can references be TOO SOON? References verify the content in independent secondary reliable sources. Are your feeelngs about Wikipedia:SPIP backed up w/ anything that other editors can do something with? Djflem (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article now stands at 21,852 bytes, and is sure be vastly expanded. Why merge only to split again?

Comment I had a lot of trouble with this article and I was wondering if I just didn't like it: it's basically a collection of WP:ROUTINE news articles about a new state governor without any summary, and many of the cites don't even say what he has accomplished, but rather discuss what he will accomplish. Also, no current state governors and very few former state governors have articles on their governorship, but that argument fails WP:OSE. Other AfD's on governorship have been due to forks (Ronald Reagan) or NPOV (Sarah Palin). This might feel like it's entirely out of left field, but I finally figured out what was bothering me after voting in an AfD about a sports league season (which needs to pass WP:EVENT): a governorship probably has to pass WP:EVENT to be notable too. Yes, there's lots written on Mr. Murphy's governorship so far, but they're all local. So many of these sources are routine political articles from nj.com. The Washington Post article was about the fact he got elected. The New York Times wrote a story about his election and the guy he put in to manage transit. Basically, this article as it stands is a simple regurgitation of local news sources for a very recent governor who hasn't made any sort of impact yet. The Sarah Palin article, for instance, has national coverage about her governorship (not about her election). This ... doesn't. SportingFlyer talk 02:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apart too much info for his biography if you merge it back in. Every modern governor should have enough info available for this type of article, that we do not have them is because no one is eager enough to write one. --RAN (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear: this is essentially what I'm saying (+ the part about there being not enough info in the parent article) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's only had a couple of months in office. His (stated) positions on various issues aren't especially notable: Actions speak louder than words, and he hasn't had much time to act yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be reflected and is reflected in the article. So that's about Murphy, what about the article? What does notable positions? Are here any objectve arguments about the article?Djflem (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:COMMONSENSE. He is already in office and stuff is happening every day. At a minimum this kind of an article is a useful placeholder to which information about various important events/aspects of his administration can be added as needed. There is no point in deleting the article now and then waiting for some magic marker to be passed. Nsk92 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. , pretty much as said by Nsk92 and others. The material is certain to be forthcoming,and the page will certainly need to be created. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason we would need to have stand alone articles on every governor of every state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what does this have to do with this article precisely? We're not here to discuss "stand alone articles on every governor", but to determine if this article on this governor meets or doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria and sourcing minimums for inclusion (which it does, as a matter of fact). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your opinion, but what are your policy-based arguments, if any?Djflem (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject notable? Yes, the governorship of Phil Murphy has been covered in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources - that solves WP:GNG. Is the article in it's current state appropriately sourced (for at least the major points)? Yes. Thus, article meets both GNG (for inclusion) and WP:V (which would be grounds for deleting if the whole article was unsourced OR - it isn't). Q.E.D. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Phil Murphy until a split is actually required. Paul LePage is 121K after 7 years in office - Murphy is only about 60K. Plenty of room for expansion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to TOOSOON and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - not valid. And the page on G.W. Bush's governorship (supposedly, a high profile individual with 2+ terms) - only 12 kbytes, while this one already has 23 kbytes. Given that both articles will likely grow, common sense would be to keep them separate - there is no requirement that all information about a subject be treated in one single article, whether we ignore size criteria or not. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a split; it is material not covered elsewhere.Djflem (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's because the parent article literally has nothing on it. However, even if we wanted to add this back in the parent article, we'd need to considerably trim it down (i.e. remove content). Therefore, this article is a valid split which covers a certain aspect of a subject in more details than the main article, and should be kept because it meets the general criteria of notability. State governors are obviously high-level political figures (even more than, say, provincial premiers in Canada) and thus, are notable enough to have in-depth coverage, irrespective of the tendency to cover celebrities (i.e. President/Vice-President candidates) more. If there's enough content to make a fully-fleshed out article (and there is), then we shouldn't just remove it because "there is no other like it" - the WP concept of precedent is much more flexible than the legal one, and if it prevents us from having a decent article on something, then ignore it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This governorship has more than enough significant mentions in newspapers to meet the general notability guidelines. Cardamon (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look at the sources which actually talk about his governorship, almost all (24 of 27) of those mentions are WP:ROUTINE coverage from nj.com. The others are a blog-paper thing talking about New Jersey politics and a radio station news blurb which is actually about a senator. SportingFlyer talk 03:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He may not have done anything significant as of yet compared to other governors, but he hasn't been in office for much time. Also, once he does do something significant, this article will just have to be created again, so what's the point of deleting this now?–Daybeers (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're not talking about recreating it a few weekss or a month or two from now. It probably wouldn't be recreated for a minimum of a year (maybe two). Like I said, if we take out all the campaign promises and focus on his time as governor (which is really what the article is supposed to be about), there would only be a few sentences left. In the meantime, the relevant content can be added to the Phil Murphy article.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the "we" is the post claims to represent?
What is the prediction of one (maybe two) based on? And why?
Who says the criteria mentioned is "what the article should be about"? Btw, the article does "focus on his time as governor".
Which "few" sentences would be chosen, by whom, and who would move them to make a comprehensive contribution? Can "we" expect a proposal on the talk page? Djflem (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, once he does do something significant, this article will just have to be created again... Considering that we only have about ten of these governorship articles, and considering that there are many other governors who did significant things, I don't think your reasoning is correct. Lepricavark (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of governors do significant things at a local level without having their governorship be particularly notable, or notable enough for Wikipedia. What makes this governorship "notable" so far is about 25 local nj.com articles, most of which are speculative. I think it can be safely merged back into the main article. SportingFlyer talk 23:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL doesn't require politicians to be important on an international level (in fact, it even explicitly mentions that "statewide office holders" are generally notable). I think it is safe to assume the criteria for sub-articles are the same as those for the parent article (plus the requirement that it not just be a content fork, that it meet WP:GNG and that it provide information which could not be easily covered in the parent article). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COMMONSENSE. As noted above, we have articles of this type for governors who late ran for President or Vice President. Unless we plan to start creating these en masse, there is no reason why Murphy should have one. Lepricavark (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking common sense isn't enough, see WP:NOCOMMON. And "unless we plan to start creating these en masse" is a nice (and off-topic) slippery slope - this discussion is about this article and whether it meets or doesn't meet inclusion criteria, not potential other ones (and even then, if there's enough content to include them, why not? as I wrote above, these are high-ranking politicians, not some random persons on the street. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a slippery slope at all. My contention is not that we should delete this article because it might lead to a rash of similar other articles. Rather, I'm saying that this article is an anomaly and should be deleted unless we plan to make more articles for governors who are not nationally influential. Lepricavark (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are sill using slip-slope argument, just rewording it. Every change at Wikipedia starts with one article and does not always conclude with people writing articles about their dogs. --RAN (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And since when is being "nationally influential" a criteria for inclusion? WP:N doesn't require that much notability for inclusion. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, we don't need an article like this one unless there is something particularly significant about a gubernatorial administration. I do not believe this article meets, or even comes close, to that standard. Generally, the important points of a governor's administration can and should be covered in the governor's biography. Nothing more than that is needed. Lepricavark (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:I don't like it isn't a good argument either, if you don't need it or don't like it, just do no read it. --RAN (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seized on one part of my argument and ignored the rest of it. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change my mind. Same goes for the IP. Lepricavark (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His election represents a major shift from previous Governor, who supported positions opposed to Murphy on most major issues. New Jersey is not only one of our largest states (by population), its governor controls the bridges and tunnels that connect New York City to Philadelphia and Washington D.C., Murphy wants to fund transit, Christie blocked the Trans Hudson Gateway Tunnel. Coverage of Murphy's administration is gonna happen. This placeholder aritcle will be expanded as events unfold.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just made an WP:ILIKEIT argument. Just because you like his policies, doesn't mean that this is an appropriate article at this time. Also, nobody knows what he will actually end up accomplishing. Some of his proposals (which is what this article is really about) are likely to face opposition from his own party.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, despite the Bridgegate incident, the governor of NJ doesn't actually control the bridges. They are controlled by the Port Authority which is an agency created by the federal government which is supposed to have equal representation from both states.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I pointed out an important policy shift, not about Bridgegate (revealing about Christie's stye, but ZERO impact on infrastructure. ) I referenced the Trans Hudson Gateway Tunnel, which Christie killed (at least for a generation), as an example of the significant shifts on a number of issues that Murphy has already begun to work on - not least by the appointments he has ALREADY made at key agencies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governorship of Phil Murphy#Cabinet nominees, a large part of the governorship article is consistent w/ the subject (& should be expanded as it's a first in terms of its composition) and which would be questionable/inappropriate and likely be challenged in a Murphy bio.Djflem (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He already signed an executive order reinstating subsidies for wind turbines; and appointed Kevin S. Corbett to head New Jersey Transit (non-cabinet agency). My point is that contrary to some assertions above, significant stuff has already happened early in this governorship: Governorship of Phil Murphy#New Jersey Transit; Governorship of Phil Murphy#Wind power.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antropov, Alexey[edit]

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

DePRODed by COI creator. Concern was: Fails WP:BIO. The sources are all about a summit meeting but contain only fleeting mentions of Antropov with no biographical in-depth coverage. This article has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional article, with scant RS. I could find nothing for International Philanthropy Summit in Monaco with a WP:RS. --Theredproject (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have much in the way of notability within the scope of the article. Only found one source in a search, a newspaper article on the summit from a non-major Monaco newspaper. SportingFlyer talk 08:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for additional sources and I couldn't find anything that actually discussed him, as opposed to just a quote from him or a passing mention. I can't find any examples of significant coverage in secondary, independent sources. He did organize a summit, but even the articles about the summit barely mention him. This topic appears to fail WP:GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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