Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 May	21 May >

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. Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Phillips[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E about a person who claims the cops were called on her for traveling while “fat and black.” power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A disruptive person who was ejected from an airplane. Does not rise to a level of an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Johnpacklambert. WP:BLP1E.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glutamate permease[edit]

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

Doesn't have sufficient notability TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick google search convinced me that this is a thing that is studied seriously in microbiology. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It certainly needs vast improvement and removal of stub-status, but I'd hardly call that a reason for deletion, especially when, per above, it does exist and has real-life implications. -User:Учхљёная ^{(talk,philosophy,edits)}. 02:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Updated and added a few refs. WP:BEFORE next time. (Also, this ought to be at the recommended name for the protein, sodium/glutamate symporter, but I guess after the AfD.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can the nominator expand on his reasons for deletion? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Please provide specific reasons this protein does not have notability. Natureium (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Proposed railways in Sydney. Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurstville–Strathfield railway line[edit]

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

I don't think it meets Wikipedia's notability standards for transportation and places. It's only reference is also void. TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As long as better sourcing could be added.TH1980 (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Proposed railways in Sydney -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Proposed railways in Sydney. A defunct proposal. Not much more to be found than already in the article, but there are some IRS to be had. Not notable in its own right. Does deserve to have its own entry in Proposed railways in Sydney, and it is a likely search term. Aoziwe (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already deleted CSD#G5 as being created by a block-evading sockpuppet. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meisha Johnson[edit]

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

Notability concerns. TV newscasters don't have any SNG, and while there's some local coverage by phillymag.com , I don't think that's sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Mundane local coverage. Merely having a job on TV doesn't make one notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:JOURNALIST....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sand: A Sandman Story[edit]

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

Not a notable film. The best claim of meeting any SNG appears to be an award at the "Fan Film Awards", but neither the organization nor other nominated films appear to be notable. GNG isn't met either; the links are blog posts that mention the film (example intro: You guys loved it, so when I found the following in my inbox, I knew I had to pass it along as well.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing with any evidence of notability here. The sources are neither independent nor notable and several appear to be parroting a press release. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Prizhilyak[edit]

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

This article on a former child actress doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Sourced primarily to a single auto-biographical post. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flo Technologies Inc[edit]

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

A startup that doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The CNET reference is marginal, everything else is worse for the purpose of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If this does wind up being kept, we will also have to address promotional language in the article. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, none of the sources look are any good, even the CNET one is mostly repeating the claims of the company, not testing it etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing ncorp. not supported in depth by sources and mildly advertorial. Quek157 (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Tragedy of Kerch[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as no WP:RS on subject single out Georgian casualties at Kerch. Focus on Georgian casualties (though many ethnic Georgians died there) is undue, Georgian news results on google appear to be based off the Georgian wiki article which is in turn based on the single 2011 interview cited in this article. Kges1901 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A before search doesn't single out the Georgian casualties as an independently notable piece of information. The title itself, "Georgian Tragedy", seems to have been composed entirely by the article creator, and I would not recommend it as a redirect. All I can make of this article is it is a POV fork giving undue weight to casaulties on one side of the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK of the much better developed Battle of the Kerch Peninsula. It might be possible to mention ethnic breakdown of Soviet troops there - or not - per editor discretion. Might be worth mentioning in World War II by country#Georgian SSR (Georgia) and Military history of Georgia#World War II as a battle with large Georgian casualties (around a third of their losses for the war).Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to back up this article and its huge POV concerns. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails V/NOR/NPOV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, merge to Battle of the Kerch Peninsula. The article and particularly the present title cannot be kept, but if evidence can be found (and I suspect it will exist) that the Soviet troops were so disproportionately Georgian, the Battle articles ought to be amended to say so. It may well be that the sources need will not be in English. I note that the battle article is heavily based on a single academic work, published in England by an author whose ethnic ancestry I cannot identify, but probably Slavic. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some support for a large number of Georgians in the 51st army: Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945 ("[T]he landscape of the Kerch peninsula ... offer[ed] no shelter to men fighting for their lives. The infantry divisions of the Fifty-first Army, many of them Georgians recently arrived from an entirely different countryside and climate, had neither plan nor cover as they faced the guns."). 24.151.50.175 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note that we also have two articles on novels written by this person, which may need a look to see about their notability (The American Way (novel) and Operation Underworld (novel)). Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Kelly (writer)[edit]

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

Obscure author of obscure works; fails to meet our notability standards. Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Unite Party[edit]

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

Either WP:TOOSOON or, more likely, WP:ONEEVENT: based on sources available online, AUP remained a registered political party for a few weeks between March and May 2014 and was then struck off the official register for failure to complete registration formalities.[1] Consequently, its only online news presence is limited to early 2014, as are the only two news pieces on the AUP website. The article subject does not currently clear WP:N in my view. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:TOOSOON, and due to poor sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of libraries owned by Viacom[edit]

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

List of the various companies' films and shows owned by Viacom. Unsourced, appears to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Trivialist (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR, unreferenced, and readers will likely be surprised by this unusual definition of "library". Pburka (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and above comment. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ~~Just noticed that the creator of this page has deleted his/her account.~~ Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure what you mean; I don't see any obvious signs that they've done that. Trivialist (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - My bad. It was irrelevant, anyway. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of libraries owned by MGM[edit]

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

List of the various companies' films and shows owned by MGM. Unsourced, appears to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Trivialist (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR, unreferenced, and readers will likely be surprised by this unusual definition of "library". Pburka (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BOLT IOT Platform[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable. All of the actual content edits were by a handful of accounts, whose only edits are to advertise this. The article itself is far from having a WP:NPOV, in my opinion. Frood 21:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just mentions. I disagree with the keep rationale on the article's tp from eithe rthe last afd or some prod. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Commercial blurb and instruction manual. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal (producer)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale is:

Similar issues as described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Au5; none of the listed sources are reliable; fails WP:MUSICBIO. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:3D67:DBB9:27A7:F7EA (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Reyk _YO! 20:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Fractal has enough releases on a notable record label to pass WP:MUSIC, none of the references are usable, only using YouTube, Soundcloud, Beatport and some social media. Micro (Talk) 11:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Anthem of South Ossetia[edit]

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

Relatively unsourced, violates copyriğt, and generally useless. -User:Учхљёная ^{(talk,philosophy,edits)}. 20:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Looking at the file, it appears to not actually violate copyright. Remove that for the reasons given for AfDing this article and it's basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT - it's the national anthem for an internationally recognized state (even though only three countries recognize it: this is no argument for whether it should be, only that it's not a fiction) and would seem to thereby be notable. SportingFlyer talk 02:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: To be clear, I'm fully for the independence of SO, I just think the page for its National Anthem needs vast improvement or simply should be deleted. I uploaded the file, but the copyriğt concern is due to an issue raised about the lyrics by another editor. -User:Учхљёная ^{(talk,philosophy,edits)}. 02:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

It would surprise me if the lyrics were in fact copyrighted as they seem to be in the public domain as the official symbol of the country under Georgian and Abkaz law (but not Ossetian?) and I am assuming this is correct: the person removing them probably did so in error. In any case, AfD is not about cleanup. The question isn't whether it should be improved or deleted - it's about whether it should be on the site, and the answer here seems to be a clear yes. SportingFlyer talk 04:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why even the stub should be deleted. Inkan1969 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also, procedural keep: nominator blocked as sock. Per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoosporia[edit]

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

This article is same as Zoospore artle as Zoospore and Zoosporia is same. Zoosporia develops into Zoospores Souvik Nova (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same: A Zoospore is a spore that uses a flagelum. The Zoosporia are a clade of Holomycota.Jmv2009 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest not deleting as several articles are already linking to it.Jmv2009 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JMV2009 - not the same thing Tazerdadog (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a) per JMV2009 - not the same thing. b) per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES: All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable. This article is about a Clade, and its a work in progress. c) Wikipedia:Obscure does not mean not notable. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Curt James Hammond[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer, whose claims to passing WP:AUTHOR are referenced to WP:BLOGS and WP:SPIP rather than to real reliable source coverage about him in real media. As always, every writer on earth is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but none of the sourcing here helps to get him over WP:GNG and nothing claimed in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horror Channel is real media. I’ve included other real media in with the article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaHadley2018 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per depth requirements in WP:BIO and WP:RECENT; most of the coverage is about a recent book covered in various gossip magazines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I appreciate Bearcat’s and OhNoitsJamie’s comments and their proposed highlights for deletion WP:BLP, WP:BLOGS and WP:SPIP and the debate regarding reliable sources but I strongly believe the content and citations I have used on the page justify its inclusion as a Wikipedia article, as I outline below:

In accordance with Wikipedia’s terms of inclusion (notability) my page dedicated to author Bryn Curt James Hammond includes citations from verified and reliable sources that are direct interviews with Bryn Hammond in respect to his life and body of work, and which are not blogs. These links include the recognised and reliable weekly entertainment magazines Heat Magazine (ABC Registered), owned by Bauer Media Group, and Now Magazine (ABC Registered), owned by Time Inc. UK.

OhNoitsJamie makes the reference that the citations I have included refer to gossip sites/magazines and only to coverage of a recent book. Heat and Now magazines are celebrity news outlets and the direct coverage with the author does not come under the remit of gossip. Gossip refers to idle talk or rumour behind a said entity’s back; this author was directly interviewed about his body of work that is based on court records, interviews and autopsy reports. Horror Channel, Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, Matt Doyle Media, Nerdly and Reel Scotland deal with Entertainment Media News, not gossip, and are reliable media news outlets.

Additionally, the citations reference interviews with the author, his life and his past, present and future body of work: The Summer of The Massacre, GoreZone Magazine (aka GZ Magazine), A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files (first and second edition), The Complete History of The Howling, A Case for Murder: Aaliyah Files and A Case for Murder: Anna Nicole Smith Files.

Other citations that directly discuss and interview the author and mention his body of work are taken from Bloody Disgusting, owned by The Collective; Dread Central, owned by Dread Central Media; LLC and Horror Channel, owned by CBS Studios and AMC Networks International. All are news outlets respected by Wikipedia and all have their own Wikipedia pages.

Further direct citations to establish the author Bryn Curt James Hammond as his own entity and his notability include Matt Doyle Media, Nerdly, BBFC, Radar Online, Reel Scotland and a citation for Horror Con; he has been invited as a celebrity guest author and an established author/critic to the 2018 Horror Cons in the UK.

In addition to the above I have included a few blog interviews as supporting evidence that show a high interest in Bryn Curt James Hammond and his work, but the bulk of the citations are as above.

I believe that proposing his page for deletion is an oversight and I would like you to reconsider based on my supporting evidence above. Bryn Curt James Hammond may not be to everybody’s taste but there is clearly an interest in him and his work that makes him notable, and coverage spans from 2007 until the present day. I am happy to supply further evidence that will also fit into Wikipedia’s criteria and show that he deserves his own Wikipedia page.

I have included a brief overview from critics of some of his work that is both for (Now Magazine) and against (Daily Grindhouse).

I wrote the Wikipedia page after much consideration of Wikipedia’s terms and conditions and after thoroughly reading what applies to people alive and dead, I believe Mr Hammond does fit into the stated criteria.

Citations used:

Heat Magazine – Interview and discussion about his book,

Now Magazine – look at his book,

Horror Channel – interview about his life and body of work,

Matt Doyle Media – interview about his life and body of work,

Nerdly– interview about his life and body of work / review of his book,

Bloody Disgusting – look at his book,

Dread Central – look at his book,

Reel Scotland – highlighting his appearance as a guest celebrity author,

Horror Con – highlighting him as a celebrity guest book author,

LisaHadley2018 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep further to my information above I have additionally included a citation to Merchants of Menace: The Business of Horror Cinema by Richard Nowell. Nowell’s book released by Bloomsbury looks at Bryn’s work as a writer & his brief spell as a director. Nowell even calls Bryn in his writing ‘infamous’. The book printed in 2014 has been listed as an academic study in horror film history, film/pop culture, Cinema studies and historical interest. The author wrote about Bryn Hammond & his work without the author’s involvement. Nowell is a film historian who teaches American Cinema at the American Studies Department of Charles University. If his book that solely focuses on notable people involved in the horror film business & their films and work that has historical interest includes Bryn Hammond, Hammond’s inclusion shows a significant and notable value Bryn has as a sole entity within the industry and further highlights his relevance to have his own Wikipedia page.

As in my prior post I’m happy to continue to supply any additional information in support of this debate and I have read and understood the guidelines for creating an alive or and dead person’s Wikipedia page and based on Wikipedia’s terms and conditions of inclusion Bryn Hammond ticks all of the box’s.

Any further evidence in support to keeping the page I will happily supply.

LisaHadley2018 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like someone really wants this article to be included. Going through the references I became more and more convinced that this is a case of WP:REFBOMB with the intention of faking notability (Subject not mentioned in sources... subject mentioned only briefly etc.). I also tried to take into account what was stated above but I didn't help me finding independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage about the subject, it felt more like a smoke screen. wikitigresito (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prinzes Amanda[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims of notability are referenced entirely to WP:BLOGS and WP:SPIP rather than to any evidence of reliable source coverage about her in real media. As always, every musician on earth is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- we're an encyclopedia, not a free public relations platform, so a person's ability to qualify for an article depends on passing our notability and referencing standards, but nothing here does that. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there is any sign of keep - the grammar, context and content need to be put into correct english. JarrahTree 05:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has won a couple of awards in her country, but the article's creator seems to have assumed that the awards make her entire life and career notable. If the awards shows had their own articles (which they don't) she could be listed there as a winner. But unfortunately her other works have not yet been noticed enough to meet notability standards. I will be charitable by concluding that it's too soon for an article until her music takes off. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Haas[edit]

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

member of local city planning commission fails GNG and WP:POLOUTCOMES Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 02:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A city's planning committee is not a level of office that gets an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:NPOL, but this is not sourced anywhere near well enough to suggest that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines by a very wide margin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Glendenning[edit]

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

Borderline A7 article, but taking here out of a supreme abundance of caution. Utterly non-notable: has a total of three Google News hits, and the majority of Google hits are social media. She got some minor coverage by the BBC in a local program on what people are doing as they are aging. Trivial coverage at best, and being citizen of the year somewhere is nowhere near a notable award. All the rest of the coverage is local. This is nowhere near what we expect from a BLP. She seems like a nice person who is involved with noble NGOs, but that doesn't make Wikipedia articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some background, this article was created as part of Amnesty International's BRAVE:Edit event worldwide. Amnesty had put together a list of articles to create/improve on women human rights defenders. Flycatchr 20:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Her husband, Frank Glendenning, died in 2002 and had an obituary in the Guardian.[2] The sentence in his obituary mentioning Angela reads: "These included the highly successful national seminars for detached youth workers run with his second wife, Angela, with whom he shared many enthusiasms and activities..." Not enough to write an article from but evidence that there might be something more. I also note that both Frank and Angela's careers stretch back into the 1960s, so it may be that there is newspaper and magazine material about her that isn't digitized and online. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator and no !delete votes. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monumental Marathon[edit]

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

I'm looking for evidence that this article passes WP:NEVENT and am not finding much. I fail to see evidence that this has gained much attention outside of Indianapolis, per WP:DIVERSE, or that the coverage is anything more than routine or trivial coverage. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most runners remember Monumental as the race where Jesse Davis ran 2:17:59.9 to qualify for the 2016 Olympic Trials (cutoff is 2:18:00) by one tenth in 2015; this event alone achieved significant media coverage including attention outside Indianapolis[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. With any annual event there is of course a lot of routine coverage out there but once you sift through it there's a significant amount of original and independent reporting. Alana Hadley's 2:38 there in in 2014 also acheived a lot of coverage considering she was just 17[10][11][12][13][14][15], and Sasha Gollish, Robert Mbithi, and Alisha Williams are all pretty well known runners. The race is often just called the "Indianapolis Marathon" if it helps in searching for sources. --Habst (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- IndyStar, WFYI, and Fox59 are all based out of Indianapolis. Blogspot's a blog, not a reliable source. Thus all reliable coverage of Jesse Davis's run from outside the area is Runner's World, and in any event that article talks primarily about Davis's run time and the controversy thereof, not the race itself. The coverage of Alana Hadley's run is less localized, but there are still problems. nc.milesplit is barely a paragraph, more about her than the Monumental Marathon. The rest of the sources are similar in devoting much coverage to her and very little to the race itself. In other words, there are no doubt notable runners who have participated in the Monumental Marathon, but notability isn't inherited, and Google searching Indianapolis Marathon did not turn up any sufficient sourcing either. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, I don't think there is a large problem with having multiple sources from a single state (I think there is also national coverage as well though as per RW article, USATF articles, Hadley articles, etc.). I think WP:DIVERSE is mostly about independence of sources (for which there are certainly many), rather than location. Also I think a race's notability in terms of external sources is mostly defined by its runners -- I'm not arguing that the race is notable because those people ran the race, I just think that because those people ran the race, there are multiple independent sources covering their runs at this race specifically. I hope that this race can stay because I think it's notable and meets the Wikipedia guidelines. Habst (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right: I've been citing WP:DIVERSE incorrectly; I was intending to refer to WP:GEOSCOPE, which reads, "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." But at this point, the geographic diversity of the coverage is a secondary issue because we have yet to establish that the race itself is covered in independent sources in a nontrivial manner. An article about a runner that mentions the runner participated in this marathon is trivial. An article that mentions a runner ran in this race which then describes this race in detail is not trivial, but I found only one source that did that; and even that was being used to explain the runner's performance, so it really was still kind of trivial. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, thank you. What type of sources do you think would be best to save the article? I found this [16] source which focuses specifically on the race itself without focusing on any runners if that helps. And here are 34 articles about the race, I haven't sifted through them all yet but I'm just not sure what more I can do. --Habst (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry for the delay replying. IBJ looks good. The Marathon Guide source is interesting, in that implies that there are a large number of articles which have dealt directly with the subject, but I can't say more without being able to see those articles, which the source does not provide. Leaning slightly towards withdrawing this nomination, but I would like someone else's opinion before I do so. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you! And yea, the site is very hard to use, but I was able to get the actual article links by clicking "copy link location" on the marathonguide link, then going to a URL decoder like this and paste the link, then click "Decode" and copy everything after "?src=" in the result, and paste that new URL into the address bar and it should be the correct article. --Habst (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major annual event in a large city that has received media coverage every year for a decade. I don't think WP:GEOSCOPE is relevant as we're talking about a long-term subject, not a one-off (e.g. 2018 Monumental Marathon would not be notable enough). SFB 15:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Rutland[edit]

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

Apparently resoundingly non-notable bit-part actor. I tried to rewrite this but was unable to find any reliably-sourced information beyond a passing mention in the autobiography of Peter Sallis and the listing of his rôles on the BFI website. I couldn't – and still can't – see the sort of in-depth coverage that would both justify having an article about him and enable us to write one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only way there was a second mention of a role was with "a bit part in Chariots of Fire", Rutland's role in that film was so minor it does not appear on our 17 name long list of the cast.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Already deleted. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hydro-Thermal Engine[edit]

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

Unreferenced, and I can find nothing sensible on this subject. It doesn't make a whole of sense either. The creator of this article is also using his user page, talk page and sandbox in a manner suggestive of personal use and promotion, which makes me think this may all be made up too. --Derek Andrews (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Derek Andrews (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOTESSAY. Unreferenced, could probably be speedied A11. Reads like it was written by a high school student. Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss ideas for inventions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete db-a11, db-g12. It's a paste from his blog. See also speedied Solar Energy Vacuum Seawater Desalination by same editor. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc Application Framework[edit]

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

Article nominated for deletion because of "lack of notability" and "lack of reliable sources" by insistent IP editor. Let's have a proper discussion about this. One point they offer is that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed", a sentence which is part of a maintenance template placed above the article since March 2010 (!). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is one of a number of computing toolkit/framework articles PROD'd by IP addresses on or about the 19th May with a claim of There are no independent sources. It seemed probable and has now become almost certain one of a small number of IP users involved in this are using rapidly switching IP's ... there's nothing wrong in switching IP's and it may be technically unavoidable but it is distracting. A cursory glance at Google Scholar was showing some sources for at least some of those PROD'd articles indicating we *may* have some sources. (Reliable checking out takes some time ... more than I really have). Major contributors to the articles did not seem to be being contacted ... again not mandatory but best practice. On balance I have chosen to dePROD some of those articles many of which were then subject to content removal ... as per this article. The article is obviously in a poor state with regards to references at this moment in time, however WP:BEFORE still requires a due diligence check by the nominator prior to AfD and I am seeing Google Scholar results that have not been addressed by the nominator and I have better things in life than drilling into these at this moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is 9 page comparison of Zinc Application Framework 4.0 and Wndx GUI Development System 2.04e in the InfoWorld magazine - looks like really solid RS:

"Product Comparison, Portable GUI frameworks, Program once, port often". InfoWorld. Vol. 17, no. 6. IDG. February 6, 1995. pp. 70–72, 76–78, 80–82. ISSN 0199-6649.

I found mid-size news about version 4.0 release in the Computerworld magazine (15 August 1994, p. 72), but this one is probably based on a press-release. There is also one page review of the "Zinc Interface Library" in PC Mag (17 December 1991, p. 75), but I´m not sure if this one has anything in common with the subject of this article (other than parent company and software development market). However, brief search via Google shows last release of "Zinc Interface Library" was version 3.0 and the first release of "Zinc Application Framework" was version 4.0, so it may be evolution of one project. I will try to use these sources (and few other short news I found) to improve the article, if I find the time. Pavlor (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed article rewrite (as my English language skills are weak, someone should "anglicize" text I wrote - if the article is kept of course). I used mostly RS (reviews and news in published/online magazines) and two company webpages. I also included some sources in the "Further reading" section, if anyone is willing to expand the article (these were in the PR section of the archived zinc.com website, but all but one should be RS; only exception is Embedded Systems Programming article, which was written by representative of Zinc Software partner company PSA, useable source anyway). Original article was plain copy/paste from the PSA website, I reworded this a little bit. Pavlor (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. With Pavlor's rewrite, the prose has become a reasonably well-sourced stub based on multiple mostly reliable sources. Nice work. The promotional prose is gone and the description looks neutral to me. The cited sourcing plus the sources in Further Reading, spread over 15 years, are sufficient to demonstrate notability in multiple reliable sources. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mojisola Adeyeye. czar 17:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moji Christianah Adeyeye[edit]

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

The page Mojisola Adeyeye was created two days before this article was created. You didn't search properly before creating this article. SuperSwift (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge rather than delete: I propose that Moji Christianah Adeyeye be merged into Mojisola Adeyeye. I just noticed the both articles were created 2 days apart. Rather than flush down the article, I believe the Mojisola Adeyeye article can get more content from the Moji Christianah Adeyeye through merging after which we may then redirect the article being discussed for deletion. Both young editors will be encouraged that way and we won't lose the little differences between the to articles. What does Ayo and Mav suggest? Danidamiobi (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: shows the importance of creating redirects from every plausible version of a name, including those used in the sources, to help editor B find out that editor A has already created an article on the topic. I've made a few new redirects just now. PamD 08:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 08:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Luttmer[edit]

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

Non-notable person with no references { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE: textbook case of what an article is not. Google search results nil, just meaningless self-hype mirror sites. Quis separabit? 20:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two of the other Mrs. America titleholders have articles, and that's because they also won better-known beauty pageants. It's not a title that attracts much notice, so a WP:GNG fail. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly does not meet the WP:GNG. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 00:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor pageant winner. Lack of sourcing for GNG Tazerdadog (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourced only to the website of the not significant pageant she won.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 00:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Singh Sidhu[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:FILMMAKER. PROD removed by the creator of the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references to indicate notability. Going by the article, his directorial debut has not yet released, indicating he fails relevant notability criteria suggested by WP:FILMMAKER. Jupitus Smart 13:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 17:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bastián Malla[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His best claim to notability is a quarter final at a challenger in 2013, which isn't good enough for NTENNIS, futures titles are meaningless for notability. Iffy★Chat -- 15:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing at all notable about his tennis achievements. Fails Tennis Project notability guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not achieved the criteria for having an article of his own yet. I want to leave a note about that key word, yet, because he is a young player and in the future may fulfill that criteria. Cristóbalrguacl (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now I don't see the sources to meet WP:GNG or the accomplishments to meet WP:NTENNIS. Papaursa (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as Moot because the article had also been nominated for Speedy Deletion WP:G3, which was completed by User:Bbb23. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Flerte Fatal (band)[edit]

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

This AfD was triggered by an IP tagging the article for speedy deletion as a hoax. At first, I thought the IP was simply being disruptive, but after checking a bit, I think the IP may be right. The article itself has no sources. The sources in the songs and albums by the band (we have several articles for them) appear to be false, i.e., formal not founds or their equivalent. I also did a Google search and found zip. A single editor created the band article and related articles (hasn't edited since February 2018). If the community determines this article should be deleted, obviously those must be as well. Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication this band is legitimate, and its existence has been viewed as a hoax elsewhere on the Internet for some time: https://community.metabrainz.org/t/flerte-fatal/243375. Similar articles were removed from the Portuguese wiki: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Victorporto98 173.175.217.135 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. 'Flerte Fatal' is the name of a song by Brazilian band Ira! and that's all that Google offers about this expression. I looked at a random article on a purported album by this purported band, Flerte Fatal (album), and I had to remove half of the certifications since they were so ludricrous it hurt. 5 times platinum album in Portugal and no mention of it in our press, really? Since ours is a very small market, those are sale numbers reserved for renowed musicians like Mariza and Tony Carreira and you can see here[17] that by 2010, only these two artists had achieved that feat. Looking at the other albums' articles, apparently this band has been collecting platinum certifications left, right and center both in Portugal and Brazil since 1997, no one has ever heard of them, no mentions of them in the press, and there's not even a videoclip of them available on Youtube. Also, the album names are all extremely common expressions in Portuguese (except for Flerte Fatal, really), so that any person that is not a native speaker of Portuguese will have loads of trouble navigating through the flood of false positives on Google. Nuke this article AND all their albums' articles at the bottom as an elaborate hoax. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to add that I also found mentions to Rita Lee's Flerte Fatal album during my search, that must not be confused with this one. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. I have put deletion tags on the other fake articles that are linked to this "band". TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm Brazilian and I say, it's a hoax.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an embarrassing hoax. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything as an elaborate hoax. I will merely add that the page histories show that this hoax has been going on for three years, and the various articles average less than five page views per month. That would explain why nobody noticed for so long, but the system eventually works. Let's wish User:Victorrendan luck in his creative writing career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has been Speedily Deleted under WP:G3 (Hoax). An uninvolved editor (not necessarily an Admin) can now close the discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 17:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helping Hands Care and Nursing at Home[edit]

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

No sense of notablity, all sources are either promotional or rather WP:ROTM coverage, WP:BEFORE came up nothing. Listing here than a CSD is due to that Sunday Times source. Quek157 (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sources does not fulfil WP:CORPDEPTH just to add Quek157 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Vinayak[edit]

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

Article/subject is non-notable Glrm88 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much better if you explained why. Not just making the assertion. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless I am missing something? There seems to be multiple non trivial reporting in independent reliable sources, and including government level recognition of the subject, from my own searches, let alone what is in the article already. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the proposer decides to be a little less vague then WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are the only categories we can use to assess the subject. There certainly seem sufficient sourcing (hidden though they are amongst the OR), with either medium or substantive coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The profile is notable. Has been a Prime Ministerial People's Ambassador for two times and has been recognized and awarded by the Victorian State Government for his community work. Several media platforms including SBS have interviewed him for his accomplishments and ground-level work. As a migrant to Australia, his work and contribution highlight Australia's success in multiculturalism. He inspires Australian young people of Indian/South Asian origin to take up community work both as a hobby and a responsibility. Resilpra (talk) 3:34 AM (GMT) 15 May 2018

Delete unless I am missing something? There is a lot of sources but this is just promotion with primary sources (such as the Gove sites) and passing mentions. The article listed as herald sun but is actually local press is also another primary. It's news Corp writing about a news Corp award/promotion. Saying he is a JP in the lead is major puffery, nothing remotely notable there. Not of the awards mentioned are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The profile is definitely notable, no doubt about it. The question can be on the content and its structure or the tone. Leostamp (talk)

Keep This is a good enough profile to be on Wikipedia. No need to delete. The profile does not represent a business interest. Like artists and educators, community workers are also equally important contributors to society. Raj_vin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given your ownership issues demostrated here can I ask, are you paying someone to create this page, who authorises changes? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any ownership issues. I am just concerned that some people are keen to attack a community leader's profile. I believe the profile is notable and has been created by his fans and followers. I am not connected to the profile neither to the profile editors. No personal interest whatsoever. Raj_vin (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No personal interest yet you created the first version of the page that was deleted as pure promotion and for well over a year here have edited about very little else? Just want to promote mr vin for what? I note that you didn't answer the question, who authorises changes to this profile? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~ -The profile should be edited as per the concerns/questions raised. No need to Delete. The Prime Minister's Award for two times and the Victorian Government's multiple Awards are equally important. These are not conferred on everyone unless the person has contributed something extraordinary/special to the community. World's leading newspaper Times of India (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com), Australia's Leading News Organization (news.com.au), Victorian Multicultural Commission (www.multicultural.vic.gov.au), Australia Day (australiaday.org.au), Victoria University (www.vu.edu.au) and SBS (www.sbs.com.au) et al have carried his stories/stories on him. There is an increasing need to feature community workers and highlight their work on Wikipedia to achieve its objective of inclusion and social justice along with adhering to its https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Resilpra (talk) 17 May 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that two keeps are from low-editcount accounts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The profile is notable and is backed by credible evidence from government and respectable media sources. User:Hariayu (talk) 21 May 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hopefully I am not missing anything. Seems like intentional targeting.The complain has shifted away from notability. May I request to Wikipedia Admin to close the discussion? User:Debadattaindia (talk) 23 May 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Griffin Technology. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proxi[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software, fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a MacWorld article. Then move Proxi (video game) to here. wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few other sources about this Cnet, [18]. BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage cited above by Bubble Engineer is substantial and independent. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Not seeing enough coverage to satisfy WP:PRODUCT. Unless there's a good deal of coverage, it should be covered at the parent company's article, Griffin Technology. That article is also up for AfD. So redirect there if it's not deleted, and just delete if it is. There's also an argument for WP:NOT here. Wikipedia is not a software directory, and this is a page with no sources other than the company website. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge (redirect): Not notable. I would also suggest to the single sourced Griffin Technology but as noted that article is up for AFD. On a search I found the reviews for the restaurant to be four out of five stars and recommended in Chicago. I also found a new game, and a solution company. What became clear was that sourcing for the subject are not enough for notability. Otr500 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stuart Bailey. A Train^talk 08:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dot Dot Dot (magazine)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, as there are no reliable sources, and since the magazine is defunct, there will likely never be any. The article indicates publication was very limited in the beginning. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a bit more searching, I was able to find a single source. However, it is a small mention, and does not meet the threshold of mutltiple independent sources. The source is: Armin Vit; Bryony Gomez Palacio (July 1, 2009). Graphic Design, Referenced: A Visual Guide to the Language, Applications, and History of Graphic Design. Rockport Publishers. p. 104. ISBN 9781616736118.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stuart Bailey where this subject is covered from the opening paragraph. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 17:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isambane News[edit]

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

The article was created by a user with the sole purpose of advertising their news company (they're now blocked for having a promotional username). I've looked everywhere, and I can't find a single source about this topic except for unreliable primary sources, such as its official website, Facebook account, and YouTube channel, and the topic does not show any sign of great significance. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NMAG. SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 02:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody ever going to vote on this? It's been a week now.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 16:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:A directory-like listing of a recent new enterprise, with no claim or evidence of attained notability. My searches are not finding the coverage needed for WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struggle Da Preacher[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Nothing on the charts, never signed to a notable label, and no third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Lacks subatantial coverage 2n reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion about a merge can resume on the article talk page. A Train^talk 08:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism in Yugoslavia[edit]

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

Created by a blocked sock, the article is an accumulation of POV and OR. Only a section is sourced (that section contains unsourced content, as a matter of fact). No reliable academic source connects the events or their reasons/outcome together. The article contains many undesirable phrases like "terrorist" and "extremist" (per WP:Terrorist). Almost all of the article elaborates only on Ustashe, indicating that the article was created to promote certain views of the banned sock. The sourced content could be moved to Ustashe. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid arguments for deletion. The topic is certainly notable. Eventual issues can be resolved by reaching consensus per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agnostic as of the moment. The page does seem to violate WP:TERRORIST on a lot of points (look the Ustasha were awful is the terrorist the right word? Unsure on that...), and poorly sourced or totally unsourced lists like this instead of prose are frowned upon as per manner of style. Agnostic as to whether this is WP:TNT. Additionally, a good page on this topic would need to have info on the state veneration of the famous terrorist Gavrilo Princip whose house was made into a museum and who was considered a national hero, while the organization he was an operator for, Black Hand, went onto inspire many other terrorist outfits. --Calthinus (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content with Ustashe, Croatian National Resistance, etc. All these "Terrorism in..." articles are WP:COATRACKs and violate WP:TERRORISM, as Ktrimi991 is quick to point out elsewhere. 23 editor (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Merge --Calthinus (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly has multiple significant problems, as users have pointed out. However, from the nomination I do not see under wich WP:DEL-REASON it falls. We generally aim at improving bad articles, instead of deleting them. Maybe you could consider cutting it back to a stub or merging it. wikitigresito (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikitigresito: I have provided the reasons above. On the sourced content, it would be suitable for Ustashe or other related articles. If we remove the entire unsourced content, all left would be a paragraph about Ustashe under the name Terrorism in Yugoslavia. Hence I opened this discussion for community input. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi991: Hey, thanks for the answer. From my perspective the issues you have listed are certainly problematic, but do not constitute reasons for deletion. That's why I asked which of the reasons listed exactly applies. It would be good for us to have a comprehensive, high-quality article on terrorism in Yugoslavia, a topic that ~~is obviously~~ seems to be notable. Therefore, I oppose deleting the article. wikitigresito (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the text certainly needs improvement and sourcing. The word "terrorism" is heavily loaded, so a change in the title itself might subsequently be considered. In modern-day Croatia, for instance, many of the actions listed in the article are considered part of a perceived, legitimate resistance. (On that, witness also suggestion by 23 editor, above, to merge into an article about "Croatian resistance.")-The Gnome (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is practically delete the unsourced content and merge the sourced one. Almost all editors who have participated here so far have underlined merging as a viable solution to the many problems of this article. If other editors support this or a similar option, it would be of help if they specify what content should me merged (all of the article or the sourced parts of it). Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important subject, more then valid article, needs to be expanded. Failed explanation to delete or merge. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per reasons outlined by 23 editor.Resnjari (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because after an editor removed the unsourced text, the article is about the Ustashe only. It gives the wrong impression that all of such bad acts in Yugoslavia were made by the Ustashe. Tiimiii (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social_Repose[edit]

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

There are no references in existence anywhere in sources of reputable calibre to demonstrate the subject has sufficient notability to be included in an encyclopedia. This is because he doesn't. SatansFeminist (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very weak sourcing. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the coverage in secondary news sources is out there; what's on the article is okay and indicates notability but sure, it could be better. Ss112 13:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage as seen "Social+Repose"+-wikipedia&oq="Social+Repose"+-wikipedia&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3638.4027.0.4355.2.2.0.0.0.0.124.213.1j1.2.0....0...1c.1j4.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.-uD0lZqF4rI here. Not sure why the weird underline is included in the title of the nom? Is it in the article too? Needs to be removed before looking for sources covering this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 08:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguities in Chinese character simplification[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no encyclopedic context. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - Firstly, this isn't explaining a definition but more of a chinese linguistics topic - so in that sense it's definitely suited. Source-wise, there are quite a few out there covering this area, e.g. Chinese the Easy Way, The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, Making Sense of Written Texts in Chinese. The bottom half of the article seems rather unhelpful, but that isn't cause for article deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- 2nd half of the article really match what nom said, this list is totally unnecessary. Yes, it is a chinese linguistic topic, but can't this small section be included in the Simplified_Chinese_characters#Consistency, actually it is already (part of it I say) included in it and this section can cover. I don't see any expansion is neeeded as this page doesn't add any content there. I feel that the sources above can be added to the section of the main article Simplified_Chinese_characters to make that particular section stronger. I don't see the need for any independent article. However, the topic of this may be what people typed on Google so no harm redirecting to the main article. --Quek157 (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary: This table feels really well suited to an appendix over at the English Wiktionary. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 00:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
may I know which page you have in mind? --Quek157 (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Quek157: wikt:Appendix:Han script, to be linked from wikt:Wiktionary:About Han script and perhaps wikt:Template:Han simp. See wikt:Appendix:Hiragana script for comparison. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Quek157 and Mxn: would disagree with both the redirect and the move (transwiki, here) suggestions. The consistency case doesn't actually cover the ambiguities section, it is (unsurprisingly) more consistency based which isn't synonymous. You could of course add the content to it, but merging in that fashion shouldn't be done via AfD (which is more merging only where keep couldn't be suitable) - and as a linguistics topic with decent available references, keep is suitable. If kept, it could of course go through proper merging consideration with proper consideration on both pages.

Responsemy take is that after close examination of the page this can well be an added info on that section. there is neither notability that is addressed in your opposition, verified sources as well as fundamentally is it suitable as an encyclopedic topic. Of course if all are met I will be for to keep. I will say delete per norm but redirect/transwiki are thinking hard to save this page valuable information and giving it into a place to stay. I am a native Chinese speaker and reader and upon close examination, I see no difference between what is said here and on the page I mentioned. Mxn is not wrong for transwiki either I am just wondering which page as it is clearly more suitable there. This is wp:notguide clearly --Quek157 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wiktionary, it might well contribute there (I'm all in favour of some suitable duplication), but it should only be removed from here if it isn't suitable - and as a functional standalone linguistics topic it is. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why not? if it is better at another project more suitable in that sense Quek157 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On that logic almost no linguistics topics should be allowed articles here, no event articles (should be at wikinews), no books (all at wikibooks), and so on and so forth. Each project has a sphere, which do have overlap zones, but the article can be suitable for both. In a more civil fashion by me, I'd put it this way - so long as it is suitable for the project, our purpose is to be beneficial to project users - which would probably be a degree of duplication. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just making it clear, I never meant this. WP:N and WP:NOT must both be fulfilled to qualify a page on Wikipedia. So far "beneficial", "suitable" are brought out, but no more. As I said, if you have proper arguments for both the above, I will not hesitate to change my vote to a keep. But so far there is none. I don't wish to bring this out but this is so WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. --Quek157 (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:N seemed answered to me by my initial Keep vote at the top. Regarding WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, I do not see how the article could be claimed to have "leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, For the books I analyzed the content, only 1 part is on ambigurity (3rd book), under that it is the ambigurity in simplification which is perfectly suited for the consistency part of the entire main article, others are just intro. The guidebook I will say it really doesn't mention anything, but just reinforce the idea of WP:NOTGUIDE. For the first book, I can't see (not available here) so I cannot comment. But these serves as verification for the section (or sources) on the main article, not a new one. --Quek157 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC) For clarity, no sources I see is sufficient to meet notability --Quek157 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed @Mxn: reply, as I am caught up in too much of Afd, good place to transwiki for the table. For the text and maybe a slight few examples can be in the main article Chinese language (as I pointed out above), so part transwiki, part redirect seems the best --Quek157 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an encyclopedic topic. Whether the large tables are suited for wikipedia or not, the lede section is sufficient for a standalone stub. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Train^talk 08:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmoney[edit]

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

Not a notable company. The 50 references appear to be all to press releases or their own website. Article is also very promotional in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the company is quite sizeable with approx $300M market cap. You can find the filings on SEDAR at https://www.sedar.com/DisplayProfile.do?lang=EN&issuerType=03&issuerNo=00037170. They are a Canadian start-up company that operates internationally and is starting to report profits after 3 years operation. User:Pareeg83 (talk • ) 11:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)--15:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Pareeg83 (talk) — Pareeg83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I understand that BitGold and GoldMoney are the same publically traded company [19]. Why are there two Wikipedia entries? The article GoldMoney article itself has pretty awful sourcing, but there are results in a quick google search for bitgold as well as for goldmoney. When I count both articles, I found a few sources for Huffington Post, The Guardian, CoinDesk, and Bloomberg which are all WP:RS thus this appears to meet WP:GNG. I agree the article is promotional in nature, but promotional is not (as far as I know) a cause for deletion of the article (rather it should be cause for deletion of content). Maybe we should first merge the two articles and cut all the promo fluff? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Jtbobwaysf, the standard for references that may be used to establish notability goes beyond mere WP:RS. Take a read of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH in particular, but the references must be intellectually independent. The references you have listed below are not, as they all rely on company announcements or rely extensively on interviews with company officers. For example, this Guardian story] entitled "Spinning gold into dollars: how BitGold intends to become a new standard" relies completely on an interview with Josh Crumb with no intellectually independent opinion or analysis (therefore not intellectually independent). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmoney and Bitgold are now consolidated under the single Goldmoney brand (Goldmoney bought Bitgold). Both had different operations and business models and hence the 2 wikipedia pages. The sourcing meets the WP:GNG. The article may be a bit on the promotional side, but that does not warrant a deletion. Orayyan85 (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC) — Orayyan85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Quick survey of sources. Not the best, best but not the worst either. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Jtbobwaysf mentioned above, the sourcing is OK and does not breach the WP:V - . A page deletion would be considered counterproductive as this page links back to a legitimate publicly traded company and passes the notability test. The article may be skewed on the promotional side to a certain extent, but if you read the article, its clear the majority of the content is written from a NPOV, also a violation of WP:NPOV is not a very strong reason for deletion as the article can be rescued. I believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only minor changes to the content. Iaa2012 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC) — Iaa2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sanctions warnings handed out to Pareeg83, Iaa2012, Orayyan85 and Topawh. MER-C 10:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable that of the 4 editors mentioned in the sanctions warnings above, Pareeg83 account was created on 14th July 2017 and has only edited on this topic with a total of 5 edits and therefore could be classified as an SPA. Orayyan85 was created a couple of days ago specifically to comment here (clearly a sock). The laa2012 account was created at the beginning of May 2018 and is another SPA that has only made 11 edits, all on this topic. And the topawh account was created in the middle of April and has also made no edits outside of this topic, another SPA. The creator of the related Roy Sebag article, Innovativerush is also an SPA that has only edited this an related articles, and commented on the AfD of Josh Crumb. An interesting aspect of this AfD is, yes you guessed it, another account, RexSox90, was created specifically to edit in this topic area and then disappeared right after. I'm smelling a lot of sock. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, most of the article is taken up with promoting the company, fails WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent, relying on company announcements or articles based on company announcements or quotations from company officers. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. On a connected note, I've also nominated Roy Sebag article for deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a socky smell around Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

adding intellectually independent references I will be adding more sources now.Iaa2012 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Still waiting..... HighKing⁺⁺ 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- added intellectually independent references Take a look and let me know if some additional changes need to be made. let us work together on improving this article, and make sure it ticks all the boxes. Iaa2012 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock votes struck: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pareeg83/Archive. MER-C 10:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted CSD#G5 having been created by a block-evading sock. Not that it would have survived anyway. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Divorce[edit]

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

The content of this article was removed from the BLP of Dave Aronberg. The editor made no attempt to engage in meaningful discussion about this and created the article as a way around it. This article isn't about the topic of the so-called 'Trump divorce' at all. It centers completely on the marital situation of one couple. Even if the topic of the 'Trump divorce' is actually notable, this is a case of Blow it up and start over. The entire premise of the current article claims that the term 'Trump divorce' is solely applied to this couple. WP:NEO may also apply. WP:NOTNEWS most likely applies.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contentfork. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Entry. Reb1981 (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The divorce of a notable person can be covered briefly in that person's biography. The article title is misleading and inappropriate. Wikipedia is not not a tabloid, and we do not give tabloid clickbait titles to articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete- clearly no notability per above, and it's just one event which can be covered in the POTUS page if needed provided sources are given or else is clear BLP violation. not news, not tabloid. unless if fox news is willing to run 2 in depth coverage then we can then accept this. not CNN. Quek157 (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTTABLOID....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but wouldn't a redirect to Dave Aronberg prevent the article from being recreated? – TheGridExe (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would not prevent it from being recreated. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

we can page protect the redirect but seriously do this redirect even need to exist?Quek157 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literal WP:WHOCARES, along with WP:REFSPAM, we're not the Miami New Times or Deco Drive. Dave Aronberg is also packed with too much fluff for a county DA article and needs a serious pare-down. Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O-Javanese spelling[edit]

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

Per WP:HOAX - the article of the same name has been deleted on the Javanese and Indonesian wikipedias, with the combination of unverifiable and un-notable invention on the part of the editor who created the articles. WP:OR is a substantial component of the reason for the article to be considered for deletion JarrahTree 00:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 00:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Recently we have deleted this page in both the Indonesian and Javanese wikipedia, because there is simply no linguistic reference that could back up the existence of "O-Javanese spelling" as was described in the article Mimihitam (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, shame as I love a good hoax, and this one is constructed with pleasant ingenuity. Still, it's totally made up and (obviously) completely unsourced and unsourceable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can confirm that it is unsourced and appears to be unsourceable. No comment on if it's a hoax. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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