Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 May	6 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 keep. Enigma^msg 06:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg[edit]

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

This is a list of random people with "Greg" in their name. If this doesn't fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE it is hard to understand what does. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page serves as a disambiguant along with all the other given name pages and actually is discriminate: if your name is Greg, you are eligible for the list. SportingFlyer talk 07:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is not a disambig page. It would be as goofy to disambig on this as it would be on "the" or some other common word. If anything it is a list, and this fails WP:LISTN by miles. Jytdog (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To get the obligatory “Other stuff exists” argument out of the way... I note that we have similar pages for many other given names (see Andy (given name) and Jenny (given name), just to list two at random). Is the “Greg” page any different? Blueboar (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Blueboar I was unaware that we have other such collections in WP. My attention was called to this one, because a now-blocked sock trying like crazy to create and keep Greg J. Marchand came and added that person's name here, I reckon as part of an effort to de-orphan that page. I was cleaning up after them, and when I followed them here and looked at the page, I was astonished to see that this page even existed. What are people thinking?! This is pretty much the definition of "indiscriminate". Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is listing every blue-linked person with "Greg" as a first name, alongside other uses of "Greg" as a name (surname, fictional characters, etc.) then this seems fine. It is halfway between an encyclopedic page on the origin of the name "Greg" and a disamg page for "Greg" , and makes little sense to split them up. But this presumes that we have captured all blue-linked "Gregs" in the person list. If this is a random sampling, then that's a problem per LISTN. --Masem (t) 13:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Masem how would a complete list of "Greg"s pass LISTN? Very interested in what sources you could bring that show that the topic "people with greg in their name" is notable. (and following on Blueboar's comment, that "people with X-first-name in their name" is notable. :) Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we're not discriminating on which blue-linked "gregs" to include, then its not a list but a disambiguation page. It already has parts that make sense as a disambiguation page, but that cannot omit any "Gregs" (which would then beg if we should have such disambi on first-name pages. --Masem (t) 21:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Masem looking at all the history of discussion and the various guidelines, I don't see any page where it says it is legit to list every person with first name X on a page X. Many of them refer to using this thing -- All pages with titles beginning with Greg -- which this page has as the first "See also", to help people find and browse through all pages where a person has first name X. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Greg! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, if the existence of such pages is in question, there should be a general discussion about whether we should have such disambiguation/list/whatever pages about shortened forms of given names rather than pick off one such article at AfD? Having said that I would strongly disagree that 'this is pretty much the definition of "indiscriminate"'. It is in fact pretty much the definition of "discriminate", because it discriminates between people called "Greg" and everyone else, and notability of each individual Greg is a pretty obvious inclusion criterion to use. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We can look at the bigger issue later. Take this as a test case. What is the basis in any policy or guideline for this page to exist? There isn't one that I can find. It is not a valid disambig page, and it is not a valid list. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NAMELIST indirectly addresses this: "To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it. ... Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named "Herb", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed." (bolding mine) To me, this means Herbs could legitimately be listed in dab pages, but aren't for a practical reason rather than for some fundamental disqualification. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clarityfiend thanks for that... clarity! Greatly appreciated.

My first response is that if we are following that, the only entries here should be:

Greg (comics), the pseudonym of the Belgian comic book artist Michel Regnier
Greg the Bunny, a puppet in a Fox sitcom of the same name
Greg, the secondary main character in Over the Garden Wall

and everything else needs to be deleted. Correct? If folks agree, I will withdraw this.Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there were non-people named Greg, I'd say that would have been possible, but I'm stunned to discover I couldn't find anything, not a village, a book, a film, anything (unlike Gregg, for some bizarre reason), so the given name is the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not understanding you. So are you saying keep this and remove all the entries but those three I listed? Delete this whole thing? Leave it as it is? (i hope not the latter...) Something else? Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

additional note -- that bit with "Herb (given name)" was added to the disambig guideline in this diff at 17:33, 27 September 2014.

I went looking in the archives to see discussion. There is:

2005 effort to have a "policy", with a !vote and all. Was not closed but way more "oppose" to the notion of having pages like Michael that are a bunch of people with that name.
2007 discussion, not much digging first-name lists, instead proposing people just use Special:PrefixIndex/Robert (all pages starting with "Robert")
2007 discussion, short, nothing much there
2010 discussion; complete muddle
another 2010 discussion; longer, complete muddle
2011 very short discussion about a template
2018 discussion about removing names.

There was a bunch of discussion on the talk page in Sept 2014, now in archive 42 but this Herb (given name) thing was not discussed there.

I feel a lot like people did back in the 2005 pseudo-RFC, who were aghast that we would have pages listing a bunch of random people named Greg. how did we get here?? Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given name lists for common names aren't extremely useful, but they are better than a redlink in lieu of a proper article on the name. If there was only one notable person named Greg, "Greg" would redirect to their article. Since there are multiple notable Gregs, then a list of name-holders is acceptable. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is just making things up, and has nothing to do with policies or guidelines or what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABNAME and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards are "making things up"? —Xezbeth (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely different than what you wrote the first time. Thanks for providing a meaningful rationale.

So Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards has a section called WP:NNAME that says A name article usually contains either a list of entries that link to other articles or a wikilink to a list article. If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created. A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list.. That is probably the lamest N standard that I have read anywhere in WP. It directly contradicts INDISCRIMINATE and invites dumping grounds like this page is currently. What the hell is going on here? Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's the way I see it. If there were a dab page, all these Gregs (given name and surname) would be 100% legitimate entries. The only reason people are handled a little differently from the run-of-the-mill entities is because there are often a lot of them, so they're usually split off. This case is a bit out of the ordinary, in that there aren't any other types of entries, but that oddity doesn't make them unlistworthy. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues with this one though. There's a lot of Gregs currently listed at Gregory (given name). There are around ~2000 notable Gregs with articles that could/should(?) be listed. There is also some past precedent for deleting lists of extremely common given names such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named John. I think there are some more recent examples too but I can't recall any off hand. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob. The argument for deleting is sound, but the end result is Jacob (name), which is a short, unhelpful article that gets a disproportionate amount of views from people who are almost certainly looking for a name list. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have this awkward situation, where lists are kept or deleted based on a seemingly arbitrary and hazy length cutoff. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Disambiguation pages titled X contain articles commonly referred to as X. People are commonly called by their first name. wumbolo ^^^ 13:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a textbook example of a disambiguant that conforms to WP:NAMELIST. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid disambiguation page. Ajf773 (talk) 20:51, 11 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 and redirect to Naruto. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja World[edit]

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

Article is completely composed of WP:INUNIVERSE plot information, and a book search didn't turn up much in the way of actual notability. Also has a lot of WP:SYNTH in that it contains a ton of information that is not actually about the universe but rather individual things in it. Even if individual organizations, characters etc. were actually notable, WP:TNT would apply. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - What a mess. This is the kind of thing that belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia. In addition, real-world coverage and discussion in either Japanese or English is sorely lacking. And whatever salvageable content is already at Naruto. At best, the article has to go, though since it's a possible search term, a redirect to Naruto can be created in its place. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is pure fancruft that should go to Wikia. I do not think a redirect would work here as more than one series has a "Ninja World" or ninja type setting, some of these series include: Ranma ½, Pokémon, Pucca, and Inuyasha to name a few. The term "Ninja World" is also only mentioned once in the article (the other two being a link to this article and a non sourced reference). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. Even the long lasting One Piece has a setting that is covered simply in the main article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above too. It belongs on a wikia or fan page, but not on Wikipedia TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is a huge mess and there are hundreds of links to it. I kept getting errors when I attempted to delete the page, but obviously this should be deleted. A redirect is not necessary but if someone really wants it... Enigma^msg 07:05, 13 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 06:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashdown Group[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable recruitment agency. Significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/KingofEnggs currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MehulWB & additinal nomination below. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the page on the company's execurity because it is part of the promo walled garden created by the same sock contributor:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost all the refs are self-sourced, including the google map. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything other than trivial mentions of them online (job advertisements, quote about atopic from one of their employees etc). BubbleEngineer (talk) 15:50, 12 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gil David Allouche[edit]

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

Does not seem to have enough independent coverage to justify an article. Could find no RS that goes to notability beyond the next web article listed as source on page. Other mentions/notes are about his company Metadata (and seem to frequently be based on press releases). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable computer programer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources are mostly about his company and not sufficient to establish notability. wikitigresito (talk) 19:36, 12 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaede Matsushima[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Being named as "a 'Japanese superstar' at Allmovie" is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 13:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic film actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 8 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 draftify. (non-admin closure) MT Train^Talk 11:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soubhik Das[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not Facebook. Google search reveals only that he exists and uses social media, and that isn't a basis for retention.

This article is written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Sir, He is Innovator plus his inventions are even used by Govt of India even I have strong references too but I am new to wikipedia I do not know writing style please help me to write the article in neutral prespective.I drafted it again but please tell me how to write the article.--Securityreligion (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 6 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 The nominator didn't give any reason for deletion and all voter disagree deletion. @Yudhacahyo: When you nominate a page for deletion, please do not blank, thanks! (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS TIRA[edit]

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

Reason Yudhacahyo (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball close and keep. No reason given and the club is a professional club playing in the top league in Indonesia which makes it notable per WP:FOOTY. Sjö (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for failure to state a reason for deletion. Failing that, keep as a professional football club per WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason given. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:56, 5 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. And salted Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David G. McAfee[edit]

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

Article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. McAfee and recreated but there has been a lack of improvement. Still fails WP:GNG and lack of exclusive coverage in news, books, etc. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Mramoeba (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. I concur. Article still fails WP:GNG and lack of substantial coverage in news, books, etc.Knox490 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability through his work, books and political 527 organisation. This page has been nominated on the grounds of ‘lack of improvement’ which is patently incorrect as a considerable amount of work has gone into adding cites and information since 2012, most pertinently the 4 further books (published by independent publishers) he has written in those years and the political organisation he runs, all properly cited (and incidentally might I remind that there is no requirement that any coverage has to be ‘exclusive’, exclusive isn’t mentioned on WP:GNG). The Party of Reason and Progress alone has The Raw Story, Vocativ and Motherboard. His various books have been recommended on CNN, CBC and Salon as well as the prominent sites in the field like Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and if you have the time to read the cites he is clearly a notable atheist in the field, I’ve read them because I improved the page, took care to make the page NPOV and remove anything i suspected of being puffery.

As Raymond has also brought up the previous AfD i’d also like to point out that of the five voters in that AfD only two of them haven’t been banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry and both of them voted to keep (I don’t count the IP with a single contribution, to the AfD.) Mramoeba (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still no improvement. Subject is just non-notable and article is a self-promotion. Talking about blocks of other editors who participated in previous AFD doesn't make non-notable individual a notable individual. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t bring up the previous AfD, I am responding to another editor. What makes this individual notable is the coverage I brought up in my vote, the seven citations i listed above. Simply gainsaying the vote of every editor who votes differently from you isn’t adding to what is supposed to be a reasoned debate. Mramoeba (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: The subject is not notable but seems to be using Wikipedia to establishing his notability in the real world, as evidenced by the promotional way the article is written. Many of the sources in the article are either self-published, or uploaded on non-notable blogs, such as this one. Other sources only have a passing mention and lack in-depth coverage about McAfee. Both the previous AfD on this subject, as well as the talk page, mention that "not unlikely that he wrote a lot of this article himself". --1990'sguy (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but you can’t persist in accusing people of being McAfee, particularly since both Epicurus and Skepticalraptor have already pointed out they are not. For the record neither am I. Stop being disruptive. I get you don’t like McAfee because he doesn’t believe in god but he’s not ‘using Wikipedia’. Mramoeba (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing people of having ulterior motives. Sources are unreliable, self-published and if you continue to promote them in breach of Wikipedia policy then obviously people would doubt your motives. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and start over with a lot of loving WP:TNT. I think McAfee probably is notable, but this article is overly sourced with references that aren't independent of the subject, and feels very promotional. There are, however, enough mainstream secondary sources which discuss his books which, in my opinion, make him pass WP:NAUTHOR #1 as being cited by his peers. Some are already in the article itself. I haven't seen the older article, but this article has too many primary/non-independent-of-the-author/irrelevant sources. SportingFlyer talk 07:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer and Mramoeba comments. RobP (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "per SportingFlyer and Mramoeba comments"? They haven't addressed how the subject pass notability. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and works on promoting himself even on Wikipedia. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google the title of his books instead of his name - they've been very widely discussed within the atheist community and have been cited in Salon and CNN and other articles. The article as it stands does a terrible job of demonstrating this and needs a little more self-confidence, which is why I recommended WP:TNT. I'd also like to note several of the delete votes in this topic are from users who based on their user page may not have a neutral point of view on the topic of atheism. SportingFlyer talk 18:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR. David G. McAfee meets none of the criteria that are required for notability. The sources in the article are non-notable websites from advocacy groups [1]. The one Washington Post article has only a passing mention [2]. As this article has been recreated and there are WP:COI concerns, it also might be wise to salt this article to prevent further promotional abuse. desmay (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear failure of WP:AUTHOR and the article is apparently a promotion. Lack of coverage in independent references. Capitals00 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not meet WP:GNG and seems to be written to advertise the subject. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do think the Salon, CBC, and CNN mentions of his books, founding the 527 org Party of Reason and Progress, along with publishing 7 books (only 1 of which was self-published), support him being notable. And, to Mramoeba's point above, exclusive coverage isn’t mentioned on WP:GNG. I don't see why people are calling the article "promotional." I'm not seeing puffery or advertising that would suggest that. Dustinlull (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How come this is your first AfD in last 5 months? Passing mentions don't really establish notability. Issues are same as they were during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. McAfee. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw notice of this AfD on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism page. I did some work on this article back in 2013, so I wanted to weigh in.

Keep I was brought here by a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard‎. Sufficient number of sources that are independent of the subject. Granted, some of the references are poor quality, but the subject easily meets GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original AfD is by now too dated to have any relevance. When the discussion occurred he had only one self-published book. He has subsequently had 5 books published by publishing houses as well as articles printed. He has surely moved from not notable to at least a minor notability in the last 6 years Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few articles on patheos.com (unreliable source) doesn't count as notability. So far that's all he has got. There is a lack of exclusive coverage which makes him non-notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the references section. He's being cited by the likes of the Washington Post and CNN. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CNN and WashingtonPost makes slightly more than a passing mention,[3]https://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/22/living/matrimony-atheist-wedding] now whether it is enough for making a stand alone biographical article is yet to be clarified. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several of the Delete voters are parroting one another and are highlighting what is a spurious rationale for their vote. The subject of this article does not need to meet the criteria of WP:AUTHOR (which is in the ADDITIONAL criteria section) to be be notable, if he meets the criteria in the Basic Criteria section of Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- which I and the other Keep votes maintain that he does. Also, the repeated use of "salt" by some people is quite obnoxious and hints at ulterior motives - not wanting an atheist activist to be the subject of an article no matter what he accomplishes. As I understand it, salting implies making it damn near impossible for a resurrection (pun intended) of the article no matter what future news-worthy accomplishments may occur for the subject. That seems just wrong on the face of it, and openly calling for that seems to me to display an ugly bias in some of the people voting to delete. RobP (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated creation of articles about non-notable subject does result in salting. All I see is spam of patheos.com and "keep" votes from accounts that haven't participated in an AfD for a very long time (WP:CANVASSING) and they talking about everything except the notability issues of this subject including you. You don't have to show your own "ugly bias" by badgering delete votes based on your beliefs. Focus on subject only. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. So it is an ugly bias to point out possible bias? Nice attempt to deflect. What's my ugly bias in thinking this article deserves to be on Wikipedia? Not going to even get into the "badgering" dig, as one vote and a comment can only be construed as badgering by someone not understanding the word. 2. Again, perhaps a problem with understanding a word: there is no way that a second version over 6 years later with significant additions could reasonably be construed as "repeated". That "policy" is clearly designed for someone quickly bouncing an article back that went through AfD. 3. How often one participates in AfD discussions is a ridiculous criteria for considering their opinions. As was mentioned, if that were the case, a small group of dedicated people could control the process entirely. Seems to me by what I generally see in AfD records is that is exactly what often seems to happen. Perhaps in fact, editors should be prohibited from voting in AfDs too often! 4. And most importantly, you claimed I was "talking about everything except the notability issues of this subject" when in fact, my main point was that holding the subject to WP:AUTHOR is an improper use of notability rules, and several did that... and you conveniently did not address that at all. RobP (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how regularly participating in AfDs (presumably just adding "me too" !votes to keep the numbers up) is a prerequisite for ever participating? You cannot know how often people read the discussion and find that others have already raised the points they want to make, so keep quiet. Your argument leads to a closed coterie of permitted AfD regulars dictating to those interested in the subject under discussion.Martin of Sheffield (talk)

Particularly when a voter is specifically using a rationale (notability of Patheos) to vote delete that they’ve been quite happy to use to support a keep vote previously Mramoeba (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done extensive research on the topic of atheism. I follow Google news on the topic of atheism. I have a couple of friends who write about atheism and current events. I also have a friend who posts on a popular social media page on atheism. I have never heard of this guy up until now. I don't think Wikipedia should be the platform to help make this guy notable, when he is not notable. Knox490 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I don't think Wikipedia should be the platform to help anyone become notable, when they are not. However, a personal anecdote concerning your (or your friends) level of knowledge of someone is not a fit argument for notability on Wikipedia. If that were a valid argument, I could urge delete for a huge percent of the millions of article in this encyclopedia. Including bios. Many with many less sources than this one. Please stick to arguing the number and strength of the sources used in the article - as is specified by WP policy. RobP (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no in-depth coverage of this guy from reliable news sources, etc. New Atheism was a fad that has petered out and news coverage of it has very greatly diminished. And now Wikipedia has articles on Postsecularism and Growth of religion. In the current environment, it will be more difficult for David G. McAfee to become notable. And he is certainly not notable now.Knox490 (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS WP:Civil POV pushing and has no place here. Mramoeba (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it POV pushing? You may disagree with his conclusion, but I don't see him violating NPOV. BTW, this is the second time you appear to have violated WP:AGF on this AfD, the first time apparently being against me. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"@Mramoeba: I don't think Wikipedia should be the platform to help make this guy notable", where's WP:Civil POV pushing there? @1990'sguy: I don't have any doubts that WP:AGF has been violated enough times here. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Majority of sourcing is comprised of press releases, self-published sources, and looking at the few reliable sources we find only the briefest of passing mentions. – Lionel^(talk) 04:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Article it obvious PROMO. Whether article creator is McAffee subject or a fan, he doesn't help his case by overstuffing it with passing mentions. I tried a g News separate search on McAfee + athiest, and got not much [4]. WP:HEY 2 things could ould persuade me to switch, 1.) multiple book reviews in significant publications, and/or, INDEPTH, SIGCOV in the from of reported profiles of McAfee or substantive interviews in significant publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG issues and WP:TOOSOON. If this is all you have after over 7 years of promotion then we need to wait for something that would really convincing. Has authored a few books and they have been mentioned along with his name, doesn't means we should create article about anyone who is mentioned by another person. Lorstaking (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Authors get coverage in reliable source for writing a book, but it has to be significant and more than a passing mention. WP:TOOSOON. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 17:48, 11 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 per G7. (non-admin closure) MT Train^Talk 11:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vector 2[edit]

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

Cites what appear to be pretty unreliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, in my opinion, unlike the previous game Vector (video game). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:59, 5 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Max Adolf Richter[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as a city alderman, referenced only to unspecified content in the municipal archives of the same city (a type of primary sourcing that every city councillor in every city could always show). As always, city councillors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist, but must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to be deemed significantly more notable than most other city councillors -- but nothing here demonstrates that at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a little searching, because a guy running nursing homes in Nazi Germany might have engaged in activities that would draw attention, but found nothing beyond a routine mention in the Beiträge zur Stadtgeschichte von Chemnitz . E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL and does not have an article in German. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:13, 7 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. (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Shaker Almraqbi[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Internet search reveals no independent sources. Septrillion (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy keep Septrillion (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per WP:POLITICIAN as I said when contesting WP:PROD deletion. We have a source confirming that he is a government minister. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, easily meets WP:NPOL as a government minister. I can also see sufficient coverage in WP:RS using the romanized spelling "Mohamed Shaker El-Markabi", which this should be moved to after the AFD. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This definitely needs cleanup to properly comply with Wikipedia's tone and structure and sourcing requirements, but he does have a strong notability claim under WP:NPOL as a government minister, and he does have the reliable source coverage to carry it. It is entirely possible to write a bad, seemingly deletable article about a topic that should rightly be in Wikipedia if the article is cleaned up — so if an article falls in that bucket, then we keep it and just flag it for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, and hope someone takes the time to build a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 6 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. Enigma^msg 06:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher O'Neill[edit]

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

The article defines Christopher O'Neill as a British financier and husband of Princess Madeleine of Sweden. Christopher O'Neill is not, however, notable as a British financier. The article about him exists since he married a Swedish princess, despite his clearly stated wishes to remain a private citizen. The article itself reports that. It has been emphasized by the Swedish royal court that O'Neill, unlike the spouses of his wife's siblings, is not a member of the royal family. Unlike them, he does no royal/state business whatsoever and holds no title. The official website of the Swedish monarchy does not have an entry for him.

A quick look at the content of the article is enough to establish that Christopher O'Neill is a person who is out of the spotlight and who is not independently notable. There is only sentence in the entire article which is neither basic personal info (place of birth, education, etc) nor family info (parents, stepcousins, wife, children). It says: "He was a Partner and Head of Research at Noster Capital and former employee of NM Rothschild and Sons and Steinberg Asset Management." The source is the Swedish royal court, however, meaning not independent coverage. O'Neill is not notable as a professional. The article exists because he is someone's husband, even though he does not do anything noteworthy as a husband. Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is a royal person whichh has recieved attention world wide. His wedding to the Princess was broadcast live in not only Sweden. He has attended a lot of royal functions along with his wife. Article is sourced with mostly Royal courts sources but that is not a problem. That he is "only the husband" is a POV statement which bares little significance since all Royals have husbands/wifes which have separate articles. In fact Christopher is an accomplished businessman, the same can not be said about all in similar position. Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have cited the Royal Court saying that Christopher O'Neill is not a "royal person". Your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is what has no significance. Besides, spouses of the King's other children are not private citizens but royals themselves. O'Neill is not notable for being an "accomplished businessman"; we had no article about him before his marriage, and (as Domdeparis has noted) we would not have one if it weren't for the marriage. His notability as an accomplished businessman is such that only one sentence in the five paragraphs is about his business career. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Agree with BabbaQ, although to be clear, he isn't actually a royal himself. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So which part do you agree with? The premise of his argument is the evidently untrue assertion that O'Neill is royal. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stated that he is a Royal person, not that he is a Royal. He has recieved the distinction of Commander of the Royal Order of the Polar Star, as an example by the king. So not an untrue assertion from my side.BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let us not descend to inventing a difference between O'Neill being a royal and O'Neill being a royal person. What else royal could he be? A royal hedgehog? Surtsicna (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Surtsicna I agree with every word BabbaQ wrote, except the first "royal". The main reasons for O'Neill not being royal are because he did not want to give up his American (and British) citizenship for a Swedish one, and because he wished to continue his profession as a businessman. He did not want to become a completely anonymous person (which of course would be impossible), which is the picture you are trying to give here. --Marbe166 (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have never said anonymous. I have only used his own (or the royal court's) words. Millions of people using social media are not anonymous, yet they are not notable either. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Mr Christopher O'Neill has respectfully requested to remain a private citizen and not to be granted royal rank." If this statement by the Royal Court is not enough to establish that Christopher O'Neill wishes to be and functions as a private citizen, then let us compare his role within the Swedish monarchy and in Swedish public life with that of his sister-in-law Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland, who has likewise married into the family. The activities of Sofia (who joined the royal family in 2015) are mentioned 1,130 times in English by the Royal Court. O'Neill (who married in 2013) is mentioned 82 times. The difference is even more striking in Swedish: the Royal Court mentions Sofia's activities 2,720 times and O'Neill 95 times. The numbers speak for themselves, and it would be entirely reasonable to honor the subject's respectful request (especially since the Royal Court does so too, not having a separate entry for him). Surtsicna (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: are you suggesting that the subject has requested that this article be deleted? Dom from Paris (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. He has, however, requested privacy and no role as a princess's husband - yet this article exists solely because of his marital status. That is contrary to the sentiment expressed by himself and the royal court. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a private citizen means not being a member of the royal family and is very different from wanting privacy which is your basis for deletion of this article. When someone marries a high profile person the limelight is turned on them. If there is sufficient in depth independent coverage of them then notability is met. It is pointless to argue that they would prefer this article not to exist. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has articles in over 20 different Wikipedias. Including Sv Wiki. BabbaQ (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions if you wish to portray the subject as notable. So far you have invoked two such arguments, WP:OTHERSTUFF and now WP:OTHERLANGS. Basically, there could be 50 Wiki articles about him, but that would not indicate any notability. Surtsicna (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Compare him to the second husband of Princess Anne the Princess Royal, Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence. Distinguished naval officer, yes, but does every distinguish flag officer of the Royal Navy have a Wikipedia page? No. He has a page because his wife is the Queen's daughter, a British princess. Well, Chris O'Neill is not a superstar in his profession, it's true. He's not Jamie Dimon. However, he's married to the Swedish king's daughter. His children are Royal Highnesses. Look, do what you want. Make a debate over it, whatever. But it's not like the Swedish royal family is that big, not nearly as large as the British royal family, where even Lady Louise has her own page. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- More WP:OTHERSTUFF fallacies, and now even a WP:NOTINHERITED: "O'Neill is not a superstar in his profession... however, he's married to the Swedish king's daughter." Do these actually hold any weight with administrators? I have already pointed out that he has no duties as the husband of the Swedish king's daughter, with official sources and an analysis of coverage by the royal court to back it up. Surtsicna (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "does every distinguish flag officer of the Royal Navy have a Wikipedia page?" Well, yes, they should have! See WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Nobody seems to be interested in what the sources are like. Do they show notability? Dom from Paris (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the discussion. I have mentioned and debated the sources above. Do you think people would have !voted Speedy Keep without the sources showing notability. I have mentioned the sources in my rationale. The sources are reliable and shows notability per confirmation of what is stated in the article. I think @Marbe166: can confirm that as well. BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, all you said was that they were royal court sources. Are these really enough to pass GNG as in depth coverage in secondary sources? Dom from Paris (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind there seems to be 3 sources that meet the requirements, NRK and the 2 SvD articles. Admittedly from what I can gather they are about his role as husband of the princess but they are in depth and in secondary sources. I would have expected the discussion to talk more about these sources than just !voting speedy on presumption of notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, per explanation by BabbaQ en Geekyroyalaficionado. This is again a case of "deletion fetishism". Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet another vote that presents no arguments but instead references fallacies presented by others. Perhaps discussions should be replaced with polling. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surtsicna, you don't have to reply to every single person leaving a opinion here. You've made your point clear several times, others just simply does not agree with your assessments.BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do not have to, but I choose to do so. My "assessments" are corroborated by official sources and hard data; a mere disagreement amounts to a personal point of view. Wikipedia is built by productive discussion, not by voting. It would be helpful if "every single person leaving an opinion here" would also leave arguments, especially about sourcing, as Dom from Paris has repeatedly suggested. Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are good enough for verifiability and the subject passes WP:GNG with flying colours, as far as I'm concerned. As for his role as merely husband to someone who happens to belong to the Swedish royal family, and that he has undertakes no royal duties, well, he's still become part of the family whether he likes it or not, he's been treated much like Sofia or Daniel in the Swedish press, where he has definitely not been out of the spotlight, as the sources here, in the Swedish Wikipedia article and even more so a basic search in Mediearkivet show. It's unfortunate in some ways, but it's not for him to decide. /Julle (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he doesn't meet GNG but can you tell us which sources show this? Dom from Paris (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Chris O'Neill" or "Christopher O'Neill" give roughly 9000 hits in Swedish newspaper archives, so wading through all the trivial mentions takes a while, but This article in Svenska Dagbladet (one of the dominating and most respected daily newspapers in Sweden) is an in-depth article focusing on O'Neill, for example. "Blivande make med låg profil" in Dagens Industri (available through Mediearkivet, requires subscription) another. Additionally, we have for example a couple of articles in Veckans Affärer focusing on his business practices: En aktivist i kungafamiljen, "Inte inblandad i svenska företag" for non-trivial coverage of his work. /Julle (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. As I said when reverting the redirect a few months ago the arguments that he must be notable because he is married to a princess doesn't follow policy. There is no inherited notability. The multitude of passing mentions and court documents are not enough. In depth coverage in independent reliable sources must be found... I even pointed to 3 that are already there but as I do not understand them I cannot comment. The nom and various keep !voters do not address the quality and coverage of the existing sources and are getting bogged down with whether he a "Royal" or a "royal person"... this discussion is going nowhere fast. We just need a couple of valid sources and a keep !vote that points to them to put this to bed. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you ask Julle for his opinion. He answers and gives a good rationale for his opinion. You dismiss it completely and states that the discussion is going nowhere. Its going nowhere for a reason, let the AfD run its course because I think the closing admin will see this in clear light.BabbaQ (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope you misunderstood me, I am saying his is the first policy based !vote and I am congratulating him!!! Dom from Paris (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. He is not Royal but he is a Royal person per work and appearances. Thank you for that input Julls.BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is usual for spouses of children of ruling houses to have articles. They're notable people in their countries, whether they hold royal rank or not. Well-sourced. And probably notable under WP:ANYBIO #1 anyway as a holder of the Commander of the Order of the Polar Star. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Just because there are articles about people in the same position as him doesn't mean he meets notabilty requirements himself and as per the additional criteria that you have cited from WP:ANYBIO it specifically says " meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". They are pointers to whether the sources to show notability exist or not. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. OSE is irrelevant here. The reason they have articles is because it is common sense for them to have articles. You cannot with all seriousness claim that spouses of princes and princesses of ruling houses are not notable people. Surely only someone with some sort of republican agenda could possibly claim that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: I object to that totally unfounded ad hominem comment. You know nothing about me but as you seem to be interested in me and not what I have said just for your information I am a royalist and am proud to be a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and also able to say that I can trace my family back with no difficulty whatsoever to the 11th century, my family tree also counts Charles II as a member. The pages you talk about may have been created because they are married to members of a royal family but notability is not inherited, try reading WP:INVALIDBIO that should help you understand my argument. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: Please reread what I actually wrote. I certainly did not accuse you of having a republican agenda. I made no ad hominem comment (although I certainly apologise if you thought I did). I merely opined that someone who claimed in all seriousness that spouses of princes and princesses of ruling houses are not notable must have such an agenda to make such a comment, since it is obvious that no such person would have a lack of sourcing and they are notable because of their position, just as members of legislatures and senior judges and senior military officers are. Some things just come under the category of common sense and do not need to be spelled out. I know you did not say that; I saw your comment below. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is sufficent in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. In this I discount all the kungahuset.se references and notably take into account the sources mentioned by User:Julle on top of the NRK and the 2 SvD articles already cited on the page. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:26, 9 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 03:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ephorize Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable concert tour. Fails WP:NCONCERT. Polyamorph (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: It is notable because it is an international tour, In 3 countries and 2 continents and is played by cupcakke, which is already notable with her own wikipedia page and a wikipedia page for the album she is promoting. User:Jusipher (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2018

Just because the artist has a wikipedia page, does not automatically make the music she produces (i.e. all those song articles you are creating) and her tour notable enough for inclusion as a separate article. Where is the significant coverage? Certainly not in the sources provided in the article. Please read WP:NCONCERT. Polyamorph (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the tour doesn't have significant coverage, the songs most definitely are notable, they have sources from several news sources, such as Stereogum, The Fader, Genius (website), Spin (magazine), Noisey, Pitchfork (website), HotNewHipHop, Tiny Mix Tapes and MTV. Jusipher (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably add this under the band performing in the concert, labeled as Concert and Tours. UnisooYamaguchiii (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:22, 20 April 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)} 21:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost no coverage of the tour in independent reliable sources (except merely to say that the tour is coming or has happened). The Affinity magazine source comes the closest, but I can't find other reviews of the tour. As such, I don't think the tour meets WP:NCONCERT at this time. Per the conversation above, just noting that this doesn't mean the artist, album, and songs can't all be notable. Just that there may not be sufficient coverage of this tour to establish notability. Ajpolino (talk) 22:17, 5 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Savaari giri giri[edit]

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

Non notable film that hasn't even been filmed yet (especially obvious given the casting call notice posted on the very article.) All results turn up for the term rather than the film. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-This's A7 stuff. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator's comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. KingAndGod 09:07, 9 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Tweedie[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~This account is a sockpuppet. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that he fails WP:GNG, and is not close to passing WP:NFOOTY (he's back in Australia to play in the MWFA Premier league). As for notability by number of YouTube followers, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels suggests the requirement is more in the order of millions of followers than 10,000, and past (archived) discussion at Talk:List of YouTubers suggests WP:GNG is also required. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chuck (☎) 23:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply fails WP:GNG. I could see nothing that even hinted at remotely sufficient IRS for WP:NEXIST. Aoziwe (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to notability whatsoever. Playing for Crawley Town would be sufficient to pass NFOOTY but the claim is demonstrably false -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Jingzhe.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Cluj[edit]

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

~~I cannot find the source that was given. Septrillion (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy keep Septrillion (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source that was given is perfectly valid. One editor's inability to find it is not a reason for deletion. This is a very tiresome episode. The nominator used WP:PROD to propose deletion of many Romanian radio and TV stations on the basis that no sources could be found, but any search in any search engine finds loads of sources. I would have hoped that that editor would have thanked me for finding the sources rather than take this to WP:AFD on such spurious grounds. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:56, 5 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. I left a small, nonpartisan procedural comment in this discussion, but I think the consensus is clear enough that I don't think that affects my ability to close this as an administrator. Mz7 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Jingzhe[edit]

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

~~Nominating for Sir Sputnik - Reason: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~This account is a sockpuppet. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY... no appearances in a fully professional league. Not enough to satisfy GNG. Eagleash (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2018 ≤(UTC)

@KnowledgeChuck: What do you mean by "Nominating for Sir Sputnik"? Sir Sputnik is an experienced editor, perfectly capable of nominating a page for deletion himself if he wishes to. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Breaking sticks: I PROD'ed this article. My guess is Chuck thought this was procedurally ineligible for PROD and so passed my proposal on to AfD. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, having not played in a fully pro league thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail WP:NFOOTY. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, mmmmm, a sockpuppet, so should really be speedily kept, but the subject is obviously non notable .... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Actually, not quite. Since the sockpuppet removed a PROD before making the AfD nomination, the technically correct procedure would be to revert both those edits and leave the PROD to run its course. However, once a discussion is under way it may as well be allowed to finish. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sockpuppet was the one that was technically correct. The article was PROD'd unsuccessfully once before, so Sir Sputnik's PROD tag was the second time a PROD tag was added to the article, making it ineligible. The technically correct procedure would have been for Sir Sputnik to have nominated it to AfD from the start. Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 10 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shreck[edit]

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidlines TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable independent coverage, does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 11:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NF. No evidence of notability. 10^Eleventeen 23:07, 11 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 Born of Osiris. Mz7 (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Heart Engraved These Messages[edit]

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

Non-notable recording from a notable band. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born of Osiris - which was the result of the first AfD. Nothing has changed since that discussion last year. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Born of Osiris. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per above, and last discussion. Viable search term, but no sourcing present to show it meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 8 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 Born of Osiris. Mz7 (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosecrance (EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born of Osiris. Second Skin made several good faith attempts at this but the article's author objected, so here we are. I did a cursory search but found nothing that rings the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Born of Osiris. Some of this article appears to be on the band, rather than the E.P. per se. 18:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Redirect - I would have considered supporting a merge if the sources were of a higher quality. If someone can find better ones, then they can use the editing history to help with an expansion of Born of Osiris.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this article isn't noteworthy at all, tried redirecting it before but the guy who made it has reverted me because he "worked so hard on it". So I suggest fully protecting it too so he doesn't do that again. Second Skin (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Born of Osiris. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:35, 8 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtana Fanning[edit]

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

Non-notable television producer, director and screenwriter with so many claims to notability but there are no independent sources to back them up. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article length trying to masquerade for promotional content, as can be seen in "finding her niche in revolutionizing television media content". Norcaes (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:26, 12 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aadhaar-enabled frauds[edit]

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

I was tempted to tag this with {{db-context}} - the author has made no attempt to provide any sort of introduction - could not even link to the Aadhaar article. This is just listcruft - nothing but external links. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would not support a CSD, but it does nothing to explain what the frauds have in common or why they are notable, and needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely would fail A1, as context can be determined from the table headings and the title. However, the list should still be deleted. The list appears to be indiscriminate, without any regard to the notability for the various "frauds" it contains. Ham tech person 21:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need a list of every single incident, especially given that none of them are significant enough to warrant a dedicated article. Ajf773 (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke -- Per all above.Indiscriminate listcruft.I sympathesize with RHaworth's point but this despite being so inherently ridiculous stuff is skillfully written enough to evade our CSDs.And, for the record, any major Aadhar fraud is yet to happen.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. I found via the AfC tags which I removed as this was not handled through AfC where it would have been declined. The creator moved it to article space which includes AfD as a feature. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ita140188 (talk) 00:18, 7 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citybus Route 962[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of bus services. Nothing in article or references to suggest that this passes WP:GNG. Shame there isn't a speedy cat for unremarkable bus services. TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete- per wp:notguide--Quek157 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - i tried to ran a earwig copyvio for G12. Didn't find anything regretably. But found source 1 is operator website, source 2 is another wiki, I am a native Chinese Speaker and Reader (though I am not a China / HK citizen), so I am confident in my ability to read the sources. With this, it is not only WP:NOTGUIDE, but clear WP:GNG. I am pro for transport pages to be retained (and argue vociferously before - see my Afd on london bus routes (2nd nomination), but sadly this is a NO). Quek157 (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTGUIDE Acnetj (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing overly special about this route that deserves an article. Plus also WP:NOTGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:08, 6 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impartner[edit]

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

Run of the mill software company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. There are no real indications of why Impartner is distinctly notable amoung software-as-service companies, nor are their sufficient sources that delve into the workings of the company. Coverage exists, mostly in relation to the company's growth in 2016-17, but this in itself is not strictly notable and is not uncommon for new companies (Impartner was founded in 2015) that survive their first year. The awards won by the company are also seemingly non-notable. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've removed the rent-an-award section. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:24, 7 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Against All Odds (clothing retailer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Aside from the single source provided in the article, Against All Odds has failed to garner significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Other coverage includes routine stories about store openings and its bankruptcy, but nothing in-depth as required by WP:GNG. ℯ xplicit 03:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in article or searches of significant coverage in independent sources. Fails both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 12 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of bonsai on stamps[edit]

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

Poorly made list cruft, unneeded. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.Chimneyrock (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How was it known that bonsai is on stamps, and is this article an example of original research? Vorbee (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT but hang on coola this book contains a stamp list (oh, crap!), no, wait, its selfpublished (whew!!:)). Coolabahapple (talk)
Delete - How can we verify, no RS available . and a lot of "???" - at most can exist as a draft but given the sources needed, this will never see light. --Quek157 (talk) 17:33, 12 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. Nominator has been blocked for sock-puppetry, and no votes for delete. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Frances Sey[edit]

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

This one is a bit odd, not sure on what makes her pass notability, but seeing as she fails WP:GNG, thus fail notability. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go with a Keep on this one. I believe that having a residence hall named after her in a major university qualifies as a significant honour under WP:ANYBIO. Here's more details:

At the inauguration of the Elizabeth Frances Baaba Sey Hall at Legon yesterday, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Ghana, Prof. Ernest Aryeetey, said the management of the university decided to name the halls after individuals who had contributed in diverse ways to the development of the university. The hall, he said, was named after Elizabeth to serve as a motivation to female students and females in general, and in recognition of their contribution to education. Source: [5].

I believe that this is sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep for much the same reason. She achieved a significant first in her country, and is rightly remembered for so-doing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep between the two articles in Modern Ghana and the Vibe Ghana already cited in the article, plus various snippets over time [6], [7] [8]. [9] there appears to be sufficient notability verified for this secondary teacher to meet GNG. SusunW (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "University of Ghana inaugurates hall in honour of first female graduate", this alone is sufficient reason. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all that is named above, per WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor ... " such as having a building (a "hall") named after her. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above-listed reasons. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source of notability is now clear, it started poorly though–Ammarpad (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nom is a puppety wuppety, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lam Khlong Ngu. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 9 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. Disruptive nomination by blocked user. (non-admin closure) Paul_012 (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Khlong Ngu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - No indication for relevance thus fails notability. KnowledgeChuck (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National parks are inherently notable. Protected areas of this scale are guaranteed to have enough sources about them to meet GNG. – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I'm not prepared to waste the energy involved in checking whether the sockmaster is formally banned, but this meets the spirit of WP:SK#4. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:57, 6 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 06:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iskaashatad[edit]

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

Everything says that this is a piece of WP:OR constructed from passing mentions in UN documents and some casting about in the aerials for a likely looking place. Even the geo-clickbait hardly notice this one. Mangoe (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 12:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ten Shocking things about Iskaashatad You Must Know! Number 8 is Suprising! Hamlet with one hut fails V and the GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:39, 8 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 withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar Leiendecker[edit]

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

I do not see any evidence that the footballer was ever affiliated with a club playing in a fully professional league, and thus he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. I do not see any evidence for WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NFOOTBALL.
Reason & Comment - This nomination is a poor nomination, subject has over 40 appearances in Bundesliga 2 which per listed is a fully professinal league(see here), therefor passes WP:NFOOTBALL. I have even referenced this in the article when I created it(see here). - For further information on the subject view this third source of profile. - With respect to Ymblanter, this is a poor nomination. Regards // KnowledgeChuck (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this referenced in the article, and none of the clubs he played for did not appear to play in Bundesliga 2. Please be more specific.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see, Fuerth indeed played in Bundesliga 2 for two seasons. I will reference this in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:45, 5 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) 12:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incel Chimney[edit]

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

Bosnian company of questionable notability (WP:GNG). All sources are offline and rather old. Search results seem to be almost only Wikipedia mirrors. The article content does not suggest that the company is particularly prominent or remarkable, or anything other than a WP:MILL business. No local language version of the article exists. Sandstein 11:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC) (edited: 14:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Withdrawn given the substantial improvements, but recommend move to Incel (company), since it seems that the notable subject is the company and not its chimney. Sandstein 14:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the titles of the old offline references don't give any indication of notability. One of the problems is that there appear to be 3 individual entities described in the article - a company, a factory, and the chimney itself. The refs are about the company which seems to have closed in the 1990s and it is clearly not notable. The factory might be referenced in some of the citations, but it is just a ruined or disused factory and they are a dime a dozen in Bosnia (see photos on Google maps for a couple of pix of the factory and the chimney). So that leaves the chimney itself - probably without any references. Is a 150 meter tall chimney notable? I can't really tell, but ultimately it's up to the authors to show this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One idea on notability of tall chimneys: List of tallest chimneys gives 578 chimneys, 492 of which are taller than 150 m. The range is 420 - 125 m. Very roughly 40% of them have associated articles, but these are usually for the factory, plant, or generating station, not for the chimney itself. By this very rough indicator - it doesn't look like the chimney is notable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Incel (company) for the start – the article is chiefly about the (former) company, and the chimney is about the only piece that remains. Incel was a major industrial combine from Banjaluka during SFR Yugoslavia age, that used to employ 6,500 workers. Here's a rather comprehensive article about it:
- "Incel: Simbol privrede postao njen spomenik (XIV)" [Incel: Symbol of economy became its gravestone]. Capital.ba Business Portal. 4 August 2015.

A lot more could be drawn from old paper sources, but I think the one above could alone support a reasonable article. There is matching fr:Incel_Holding_Banja_Luka. No such user (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded the article with some basic facts available in online sources. I'm not terribly interested in the subject and did not want to spend much time on it, but I think it passes the minimum standards. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and the original text did cite some offline material, but I don't have it available. No such user (talk) 14:29, 9 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. Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo mat[edit]

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

no reference given Wiki841 (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wikipedia is not a guide to constructing a sukkah. Mangoe (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTHOWTO, a bamboo mat is a floor covering, the use of bamboo for sukkah is already covered (very droll coola:)) at Sukkah#Structure. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non encyclopedic content, fails WP:NOT (and [[WP:V00). Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:40, 9 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) 12:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Shit Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG most of the sources are affiliated, the rest either don't mention the subject or are blogs. Sourcing is way too weak nothing of interest found in a before search. This looks like a soapbox article. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi there I will work to improve, the articles. They have a lot of notable hits and are known for having 'Gang Sh*t' in their music. Some examples are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZPjgcqHSa8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAFwL5mR1mc, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7lTHOMmnnM to add a few. Also the label is made of sub-labels as most labels are, meaning an artist has his own label which is owned and managed by the main label which means that not always Gang Shit Records will be appear as the publishing label. Jamesrichards12345

Sadly YouTube videos are not sufficient to show notability. Do you have other sources? Dom from Paris (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found this http://dailygrimenews.co.uk/2017/11/exclusive-interview-with-georgi-zhechev-gang-shit-records-founder-ceo/ from some British rap website and also this from some social + branding site that gets about 360k visits a month https://sloganshub.org/music-production-company-names-ideas/ but I acknoledge that is irrelevant :D

Hi Dom from Paris, I found another one http://grimecentral.co.uk/2017/11/gang-shit-records-racks-up-the-nominations/

Weak Keep The sources are very weak in terms of trustworthines, but it seems that they do have a couple of high profile artists on the record label. I also looked up the UK charts and there are some hits in the charts that are credited to the label. Illuminatio320 —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the article it seems that some artists have been nominated for notable awards in the British rap scene known as the MOBO and Rated Awards, also its Distributor is set as Atlantic which may add extra notability. However it has a lot of secondary sources but currently not a lot of primary sources, also a lot of info is not backed. Just wanted to add some more info I found for other people to make up their mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminatio320 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are weak and the article reeks of promotion. WP:NOTPROMOTION. I removed about a dozen Youtube links, which amount to unreliable sources that support OR in the context that they were used. Also, the above two accounts voting keep are highly suspicious. I see coordinated movements.104.163.159.237 (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is promotional in tone and fueled by either niche or self-published sources with no significant third-party coverage. The "notable artists" section is particularly laughable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:23, 13 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Luyando y Colarte[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER or WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial and doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Kierzek (talk) 23:15, 8 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Rockers[edit]

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

Looks like it's borderline notable at best. Most sources are not RS: published by themselves, blogs or similar and few WP:RS mentions. I take it to AfD for consideration. Sjö (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:59, 9 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 Comparison of programming languages (syntax)#Statements. Content can be merged from history editorially. Sandstein 08:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linear syntax[edit]

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

No sources on page, can not find any mentions of this term in programming literature with the same meaning SlowByte (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as per nom) along with Line-oriented programming language or merge what remains of both into Comparison of programming languages (syntax)#Statements. SpaceInnovader (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comparison of programming languages (syntax)#Statements with a mention of the "Line-oriented language" terminology. "Line-oriented language" is a concept in programming languages and was a common approach in older languages line Fortran.[10] Newer languages like Ruby are also claimed to have some line-oriented features.[11] While well-known in the programming field, I don't know if there is sourcing sufficient to support a standalone article. Nevertheless, it is a verifiable concept and worth a mention in Comparison of programming languages (syntax)#Statements, where the concept is discussed. Linear syntax on the other hand seems to have no sourcing out there. So I recommend delete for Linear syntax, and redirect for Line-oriented programming language and Line-oriented language. --Mark viking (talk) 21:48, 8 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kovacevich[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman who fails WP:ANYBIO. Subject co-founded two companies. Coverage exists, but not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV as sources are all about the subject's company rather than the subject himself, I.E trivial and tangential mentions. In addition, nothing indicates to me why this individual is distinctly notable when compared to other businessmen. Created by a COI editor, though this is not against policy. A redirect to Kush Bottles (which was also recently created by the same COI editor) is also possible. SamHolt6 (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough SIGCOV to pass WP:BIO. Agreed that a redirect would be fine. Edwardx (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO.scope_creep (talk) 11:56, 6 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outsharing[edit]

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

Largely unsourced article about a non-notable neologism. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newly fashioned subject hasn't even made it yet into the discos. -The Gnome (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Gnome, and WP:NEO. I found another mention of it in Forbes (added), but both articles struggle to differentiate it from outsourcing. Apart from the two WP:RS cited, there's nothing worth merging. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:40, 10 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Silveira[edit]

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

Not a notable political candidate (of the American Solidarity Party); doesn't meet WP:NPOL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear WP:NPOL failure, nothing else to support WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Three of the sources cited are blogs, religious websites, and a state announcement of all candidacies; the Los Angeles Times one simply mentions the subject's name in a list titled "The rest of the field." Ran WP:BEFORE and only found primary sources (e.g. here) or letters to the local newspaper. -The Gnome (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he has preexisting notability for some other reason besides being a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to clear the notability bar as a politician. But not only does this article not demonstrate any preexisting notability for prior endeavours, it doesn't even try. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL; no other source of notability found in searches of his quite unique name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some new sources have been added, including a mention of Silveira in the Modesto Bee. Silveira is a minor candidate, but unlike some of the others mentioned in the Los Angeles Times article he is the nominee of an actual political party. The American Solidarity Party article shows that in the 2016 presidential election, the party's nominee was certified as a write-in in eighteen states (including California), and on the ballot in Colorado. So while not every candidate is notable, being the nominee of this party in California suffices for notability. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mention is in a letter to the editor: hardly significant, and your assumption would make most if not all minor candidates presumptively notable. SportingFlyer talk 05:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for governor are not default notable, nothing else makes him notable. Even being a nominee of a major party is not normally enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California gubernatorial election, 2018, the primary reason Silveira has any coverage at all. There is no significant, third party coverage in reliable, independent sources. The Modesto Bee source is a letter to the editor. Primary sources (e.g. interview in Imago Dei Politics) do not count towards notability. Being included in a list of 27 gubernatorial candidates does not establish independent notability. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:52, 11 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Green[edit]

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

Not a notable company. References are stock prices or their own press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor sourcing. So badly written it's got "focused", "leading-edge", and "solutions" all in the same sentence: "It is focused on leading-edge cannabis industry solutions." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete press releases, press releases, and press releases. Also, that sentence that Smallbones mentioned is lol worthy promotional Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, investigating further gives some sources, which I'd still say less than, notability (there's some coverage of their buying of Nipton and some analysis, but they generally aren't too indepth on the company and repeat similar things); but anyhow still delete on WP:NOTPROMO and WP:TNT, either way; judging by copyvio detector this article is largely a mish mash of sentences copied from press releases (@YeahImaBoss: don't copy from press releases or any other website) and needs to be mostly removed on copyvio grounds Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is likely a pump and dump scam - I went to check out something that didn't look quite right - the infobox said it was NYSE listed (lede too, but this might have been later). Company is "listed" on the Pink sheets not NYSE. Pink sheets are the lowest of the low. NYSE-listing or other "real exchange"-listings are the top tier, NASDAQ has 2 tiers (National + ?) then there are 3 OTC tiers (pink sheet is the lowest). Bloomberg quotes a $0.00 stock price. All classic pump and dump signals. Can we get rid of this ASAP? It is toxic waste. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I'll strip out all the garbage in the article, which should not leave much. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:01, 7 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eitaro Haga[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Being awarded a "5th Place Best Director Award" is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for subject not meeting WP:PORNBIO. Or WP:FILMMAKER, either. -The Gnome (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 13:22, 6 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madoka Ozawa[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Being named as "a very popular Tokyo born Japanese AV actress" in a nn blog is an insufficient claim of significance.

First AfD closed as "no consensus" in 2015. The consensus in PORNBIO AfDs have significantly shifted since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for subject not meeting WP:PORNBIO. Sources cited are mostly promotional & adulatory. -The Gnome (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 13:21, 6 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Sakurada[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Being named an "AV idol" / being a prolific actress is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because its subjects, Sakura Sakurada and Sakura Matsui, fail WP:PORNBIO, WP:NACTOR, and WP:SINGER. -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 13:21, 6 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Rozati[edit]

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

OK so the subject has an entry on FA and DE WP's but I'm not sure about the N criteria there but here on EN, apparently the subject clearly fails to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:AUTHOR and even basic GNG. The subject has received some trivial mention in independent RS but I am unable to locate in-depth coverage about the subject, unfortunately. I suspect some of the cited sources are not even reliable enough. The subject has also received some insignificant non-notable awards. Saqib (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 11 April 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)} 21:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NARTIST#4 with multiple significant awards and important exhibitions supported by reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The awards and Exhibitions not significant in this case. --Saqib(talk) 06:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally agree with Saquib. There are actually only two or three minor exhibitions listed. Does not pass any aspect of WP:NARTIST.104.163.159.237 (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies requirements of GNG. EnPassant (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How? Care to provide some solid coverage which can help establish the WP:N? --Saqib (talk) 18:08, 11 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 Draftify. Moved to Draft:Linear Air. Randykitty (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Herp[edit]

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

Main claim of credibility seems to be Linear Air. While notability cannot be inherited I am not sure that Linear Air itself is notable under WP:CORP. While he has received coverage in a number of private jet industry magazines, as well as at least one alumni magazine coverage, I would suggest none of these are WP:RS. He therefore does not meet GNG or any other standards for notability as I see it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: can you explain why you don't consider the industry magazines to be reliable? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Page Curation handled that nomination improperly, it should have created a second page instead of adding to the old one. I'll investigate and probably file a task at Phabricator. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: Definitely a fair question. An industry magazine can obviously be highly reliable or basically semi-paid for content. I will admit I didn't do a fully study of RS, as they are sources I'm not immediately familiar with, but instead relied on comments I'd read at the previous AfD (thanks for the bug report). Something which I hadn't discovered until now is that it appears despite the previous AfD being marked closed by Sandstein the page was never actually deleted. I will comment that the page as it exists today is not substantially different from the version which was deleted. If I had originally noticed this I might have tagged G4 (which is admittedly not a tag I'd seriously examined before in my relatively nascent NPP work). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over said AfD, I'm not particularly impressed by what I saw. Two delete votes, one comment that leaned towards delete, and 1 keep. The only one who made arguments referring to policy was the keep, Silver seren. I'll take a look at the sources myself in a little bit, but I'm not particularly inclined to agree with the results of that AfD (I would have closed it as no consensus) or use it as precedent in this one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an unremarkable entrepreneur. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO & significant RS coverage not found. Coverage is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Reads like a promotional CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, now I'm seeing it. Coverage is trivial. Speedy delete per CSD G4. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: viewing the page log, the article was restored after deletion and moved to User:Silver seren's userspace. After very minor additions by User:Daask (but enough to IMO disqualify the page from G4), User:Compassionate727 moved the page back to mainspace. ansh 666 23:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, fine then. Delete per nom. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Linear Air I stumbled across what looked like a nearly-finished draft and sought to improve it enough to get it into mainspace. After realizing it had gone through a deletion discussion, looking for sources, and considering further, I agreed that Herp wasn't notable and abandoned the effort. That said, I think Linear Air probably is notable. See some additional sources I added in the further reading section and some additional notes I posted to the talk page here. If y'all don't think Linear Air is notable, I don't care that much. Daask (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the nom questions whether Linear Air is notable (a statement made with only cursory research) given sources found by Daask I now agree that it is notable. However, not sure I follow moving this page there given that they are distinct topics. Sure move the Linear Air section and start the article from there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

I feel like I've flipped positions far too many times on this one. Hopefully this is the last: move to Draft:Linear Air per Daask. I agree based on the sourcing here that Linear Air is probably notable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Whatever You Want I'd given up on Wikipedia several years back for a reason. I make edits here and there if I notice something, but I decided to actually go and do something worthwhile with my life rather than fighting over article nonsense all the time. It just wasn't worth it. Silver seren^C 07:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable entrepreneur, wouldn't mind a merge or mention in one of the companies he worked for if they were notable. SportingFlyer talk 03:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The subject is a remarkable entrepreneur but has not (yet?) received the wide notice in sources required by Wikipedia. Most of the sources are industry-esoteric; the one in GQ is insignificant while Harvard's publications present an alumnus. The text is well put together and the presentation robust; moving this to drafts would be recommended, since the future might improve its standing. -The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 5 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. Despite a superficially large number of references provided, most analysis of them done by participants leads to basically everything failing WP:ORGCRIT, a guideline specifically formulated to prevent establishing business notability primarily based on marketing materials and passing mentions. The sources available do not seem to currently establish sufficient notability based on in-depth independent coverage, that would allow a neutral encyclopedic article without original research. It appears that the informed consensus of uninvolved users supports deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 09:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SmartRecruiters[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Coverage is in unreliable sources (forbes/sites/) or is not independent. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good sources: [12] [13] OK sources: [14] [15] Sources that discuss mergers but don't contribute to GNG: [16] [17] [18] These are from the Google news search above. Three pages in and I had enough. There are also a lot of mentions of the company in other sources. Sometimes these are mentions of highly placed staff commenting on hiring principles. Other times they're discussing technology. Overall, easily meets GNG even if the article is poorly sourced and written. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Walter's assessment. The company is more than notable given it's presence in the bay area and variety of sources avaialble. Most companies and startups of that scale typically have Wikipedia articles including their competitors such as Jobvite, Greenhouse Software etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmehta21 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one "good" source is from Forbes sites, basically blog hosted in Forbes, other is all "according to press release" with the minimum of analysis. As our new WP:ORGCRIT guideline says, "A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant."; notes about forbes sites: "Most of such posts are company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials" and so on. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with both above comments. This article meets GNG easily and that can be proved by a simple google search where there are 40-50 third party websites with information on the company. A few of the sources here are TIME, Huffington Post, Fast Company, INC., and CIO. The links to the sources can be found at the bottom of their homepage (https://www.smartrecruiters.com/). There's in-depth third party information on at least four of these independant sources. In fact, every competitor that they have of similar scale has a Wikipedia page i.e. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Software, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobvite). I think while the article is somewhat of a stub, it meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.Ajmehta21 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Ajmehta21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Also a SPA who extensively edited the topic, such as creating the Hiring Success Conference, which is related to the article under discussion. Currently a redirect to it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific sources have in-depth third party information? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you've removed my comment from your talk page; what relationship do you have with the company? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relationship with the company. It's just an industry I know a lot about and it seemed as if a company with sizable market share in the recruiting space should have public information about it. Here's some sources that I believe prove clear notability.

Techcrunch: https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/30/smartrecruiters-raises-30-million-for-hiring-software/

Techcrunch 2: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/31/berlins-jobspotting-acquired-by-sfs-smartrecruiters-for-undisclosed-sun/

Time: http://time.com/3818643/heres-why-tuesday-is-the-best-day-for-job-seekers/

CIO: https://www.cio.com/article/3198085/careers-staffing/the-future-of-job-hunting-is-more-spotify-less-craigslist.html

HRTechnologist: https://www.hrtechnologist.com/news/talent-assessment/smartrecruiters-releases-free-recruiting-software-for-small-businesses/

FastCompany: https://www.fastcompany.com/3044654/why-you-are-most-likely-to-get-hired-on-a-tuesday

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianrashid/2017/05/12/the-best-hr-software-for-your-business/#5c7cfd375c7c Ajmehta21 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that use their study, or quote them or interview them don't count as coverage as they're not looking into the company and writing about it independantly; the coverage needs to be about the company, its history and so on, so we can write about it. Forbes sites is as I said above not a permissible source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. *None* of those sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. Please read WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Why do the Techcrunch articles not count then? I read WP:CORPDEPTH and it seems to meet all of the criteria to be considered an independent source. Clearly, there is some gray area here considering that almost all businesses are quoted to some degree in articles and pieces of news around them. I checked the Wikipedia page of their competitors such as Greenhouse, Jobvite, Lever, and those seem to all have sources that have quotes too. Why aren't those pages being contested for deletion as well? Ajmehta21 (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those article do not count because the *content* needs to be "intellectually independent*. Nobody has said that TechCrunch is not an independent source - it is. What is being said is that the criteria for establishing notability requires that the articles are intellectually independent. Take a read of WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:ORGIND as well? In order to meet the criteria for establishing notability, the articles must pass the test of being "intellectually independent". This TechCrunch article is simply repeating messages provided by the company. You can tell because it uses phrases like "SmartRecruiters thinks...", "The team deflected when asked about IPO possibilites" as well as the quotes from the CEO and from their investors. Definitely not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. This TechCrunch reference fails for similar reasons since it uses data/information provided by the company and the article relies on quotations from the CEO. There is no "independent" opinion or analysis provided by the journalist whatsoever. If you feel other articles fail notability, you are free to nominate them for deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evan1990 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.81.122 (talk) [reply]

— 12.203.81.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This IP has also attempted to remove the AfD template [19]. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are 201 articles on Factiva, they do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, the content supplied is not independent of the source, or the source is not WP:RS. Keep Based on the forbes and techcrunch articles... but only just. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deathlibrarian, I posted above why the Tech Crunch articles fails WP:ORGIND (they're not "intellectually independent" which is a requirement adopted in March/April 2018). The Forbes article fails WP:RS as it is essentially published without editorial oversight and are solely the opinions of the contributors (i.e. a Blog). Can you take another look and consider your !vote again? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing- That may be true, However..... I've just run a search on Factiva and found 201 articles on there referring to or directly featuring this company, including at least 4 from Forbes, two from Wall Street Journal, and many others. I've added added some of them, but I can add more if its felt needed. Considering this, I'm leaving it at "keep". Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. For example, Forbes is forbes.com/site which is a user submitted area, not editorial content; possibly a promo placement. Techcrunch is way too indiscriminate to count towards notability in tech. The rest of the sources are likewise non-independent / WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of SPA activity on this AfD is concerning. The IP and Special:Contributions/Ajmehta21 are both SPAs focused on this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense in being called an SPA here - SmartRecruiters was my first attempt to write a full article and I've edited about 6-7 different articles all in different areas and categories. I'd appreciate if I was not labeled simply by my most recent work when I have contributions to many other pages given that I am new around here. Ajmehta21 (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done a Factiva search on this company and there are *201* articles on there for Smartrecruiters, some featuring the company, others referring to it - including a number from Forbes, and at least one from The Wall Street Journal. Seems like plenty of references, many of them seem to refer to the company as an innovated in the industry. I've added a few, but there are plenty of more in there to be added if people feel the need at this point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but can you please provide references/links? Otherwise this argument is similar to WP:GHITS. It is not the volume of references but the quality. Volume can simply be indicative of a good PR department (which, btw, appears to me to be the case). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's volume *and* some quality in the FACTIVA results. I've put a couple in, I'll whack some more in when I get the chance. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's two sources found on Google Scholar that meet and challenge the above discussions (found via Google Scholar)

Schaeffer, Anaïs. "CERN modernises its recruitment process." and (2016).

Hayat, Syed Aftab. "A survival strategy for small businesses: The need to adapt global HR practices." Global Journal of Human Resource Management 2.2 (2014): 13-24.

Ajmehta21 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgive me, I reformatted your references so that the appear with your comment - otherwise as more comments are added, they'd be disconnected. Also, no, neither of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The first reference can also be found here on the Cern website. Cern are a customer and therefore this reference is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:ORGIND. The second reference can be accessed here. While I have no idea why you reference pages 13-24, the only mention (on page 19) states "These may include initiatives such as SmartRecruiters, iKrut, OpenCATS, Weebly and SoftGarden." This fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a mere mention-in-passing. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This Forbes article about the subject was written by a "Vice-President and Principal Analyst at Atherton Research, a global technology consulting and intelligence firm helping clients plan, build and deliver successful go-to-market strategies," which makes it rather suspicious for bias. But this one, written by magazine staff, goes on extensively about SmartRecruiters and cites its data work. Yes, this report on BusinessWire is not more than a press release, but then The Wall Street Journal reports on the company's IPO, which it does not do for every TD&H. All in all, the citations that count enable the subject to barely yet clearly meet the required notability criteria for a corporation. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against paid editing in Wikipedia and even more so against promotional and advertising. So, my opinion is offered with a sprinkling of self disgust at it. Still, N is N, while the quality of an article can always be improved. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response/Comment The Gnome, thank you for those references. But still, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. This Forbes article written by the VP and PA at Atherton Research fails WP:RS as it clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" therefore not under editorial control and this type of article is regarded as a Blog post or equivalent. This next Forbes reference is a report *based* on "The number SmartRecruiters pulled" .... "all from the company's own job search platform". It does not "go on extensively" about the company - rather it goes on extensively about the data provided by the company. The article is not intellectually independent and does not provide an in-depth opinion on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The announcement by the WSJ fails as it is "trivial coverage" WP:CORPDEPTH and it is based on company announcements/press releases fails WP:ORGIND. The criteria for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability is *different* than the criteria for citing references to support facts within an article. Most of the references you have mentioned would meet the requirements for supporting facts within an article but they fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. My "keep" opinion just got weaker. -The Gnome (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now added three new articles from Forbes, two new references form the Wall Street Journal, and an article from the Washington Post. As mentioned, there are *plenty* of references for this company on the Factiva news service. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Response I note that you don't bother to check for links to the articles you add. While it isn't mandatory it takes very little effort on your part and helps keep articles easy to read. Just because you use Factiva doesn't mean that a little search on Google won't turn up the article. For the convenience of everyone else here at this AfD, here are the references you added: 1. WSJ is a review of a number of different websites with SmartRecruiters mentioned at the end. This reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it provides no in-depth information on the company. 2. Forbes fails WP:ORGIND as it simply relies on a quotation from the founder/CEO and fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it provides no in-depth information on the company. 3. Forbes fails WP:ORGIND as the author "touched base with end-to-end talent acquisition platform SmartRecruiters" for "internal data" which the "company recently released" and the report is based on this data along with quotations from the CEO, is not intellectually independent. Also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is not an in-depth piece on the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing I think there is no need to be narky about, *ahem* WP:CIVIL. As for the articles, I agree, you are correct. I've been through all the Factiva artciles, none of them really meet WP:CORPDEPTH. They are generally eiher quoting someone from Smartrecruiters, so are not independent, or they are not an indepth analysis of smartrecruiters, but instead discussing some data they have provided. Either that, or they don't qualify as WP:RS. So I will change my vote to delete. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be close to the truth to admit that I was narky at having to chase down the references you found using Factiva and even narkier when I realised they clearly failed the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps a little bit of "narkey" spilled over and I wondered why you were making the process extra difficult but it was not aimed at you personally. I'm completely narky-free today though and thank you for reviewing the Factiva references and thank you again for reviewing your previous !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, all good man, and you did some good work here. Next time I'll make sure the links are also in the afd. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HighKing for doing the analysis of the sources, with which I agree with. People should actually check the sources for depth rather than adding mere mentions which are not helpful nor count towards notability (i.e number of Factiva hits is meaningless; if they are all mentions/not really about the company they don't count for anything) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:53, 7 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. I would be happy to userfy to an established editor in good standing who wishes to merge this information elsewhere J04n(talk page) 18:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2005 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is unlikely to be notable, fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The TVB awards are similar to and hold the same prestige as the Daytime Emmy Award held here in the United States, which also have separate articles for each year’s winners. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I argued in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 TVB Anniversary Awards, it would be 'one thing if this celebrated the entirety of Hong Kong television, but this is literally an infomercial for TVB programming that gets trophies merely for existing on TVB (along with the insufferable ballot stuffing that comes with singular-network awards).' If no other network can participate in this ceremony, then it's not a true award on merit, but just an award for existing on TVB. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also for the rest of the AfD, if your logic is there, then many other awards pages which is linked to a specific channel needs deletion. e.g. 2018 Star Awards or 2016 SBS Drama Awards. Either Keep all or Link/Merge all or Delete all as Wikipedia must have consistency. So what is your stand??? --Quek157 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FURTHER Comment For different countries in Asia, it's different. In Hong Kong, the only terrestrial channel is TVB. And many people (no citation for this though) does watch only TVB as it is almost the only FTA. So since the majority only watch the channel and only that channel have that kind of exposure, it will be deemed as 100% of the nation. For Korea, yes, there are KBS, EBS, MBC, SBS but each have their own awards, (if you reference the Korean wiki, the entertainment awards are given their whole page also). For Singapore, my home country, we only have MediaCorp and Star Awards are the national award - even the Minister in charge of Communications will officiate. So my final criteria of notability that I can propose is that

1. If the terrestrial channel have significant share in the country and (EMPHASIS) the page is properly cited (i.e. with secondary reliable sources), we should Keep as per meeting WP:GNG. (or any other benchmark you can propose)

2. Implications of this approach: A lot of tedious admin work is needed and there will be so much trawling to be done, so it's hard...

Therefore, I would humbly propose that this entire Afd to be "no consensus" and ~~keep~~ and the nominator should go through each and every site in Asia for awards which are contentious and do a group Afd (meaning all the articles together). This will generate enough consensus (and ease the process for all of us to see) + this will allows trends to be seen plus admin backend work will be easiler. disparate Afds makes it very hard for another people to see and edit. Will also copy this to others Afd by nominator... as per othr Afd --Quek157 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Addition: My meaning of group Afd is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Afd_footer_(multiple). --Quek157 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There can exist no issue of "trolling"/"trawling" here, since admins are rather quick on the draw about such disturbances, don't worry. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge WP:LISTCRUFT WP:FANCRUFT - I can't believe that so many articles have been created in regard to an award given by a TV station for its own programs! A lot of information is duplicated in other articles to justify a dedicated template Template:TVB_Awards. The information can easily consolidated to a single article. All these separate articles don't add much value. I am familiar with Hong Kong TV and I understand the dedication and passion of the HKers that most likely created it, but it as limited relevance in English speaking environs. I know that these articles have a Chinese language counterpart which may have greater relevance to justify existence. Acnetj (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment who will consolidate the articles. I rather it is deleted or kept. The pages aren't just one liner or one paragraph stubs, but really long ones. and we are talking about 13 articles of such a length. I forsee trouble for it. If merge is one reason, I rather it been what User:The Gnome says.Quek157 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the TVB article, since the subject lacks independent notability. Either this reprieve or Delete altogether. And before the usual whine is raised, don't bother, I'm not interested at all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relevance doesn't seem to have anything to do with notability which is where an article stands or not. I don't mind merging all the pages into one though. will rather merge than delete. the template is another thing . that will be a tfd. problem is how to merge. The fact that it have an article for each year at Chinese wiki is in fact stronger for the keep as it means that it's notable in Chinese wiki. remember many English Wikipedia articles comes from translation of other languages and since notability is established there. this may lend some weight here. though transwiki may be one but this is Wikipedia in different languages not as if it's wiki dictionary. I am still of neutral stance leaning to keep as no real good arguments coming up. do note I am not saying all or nothing. I take this at it's merit. WP:LISTCRUFT seems valid but I think since its national television, WP:FANCRUFT seems not that valid --Quek157 (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final take for me in these disparate Afds, no particular opinion as there are values to keep, delete have some reasons, while merge / redirect seems nice and appropriate, merging into TVB will cause a lot of information to be lost, to merge all the awards into 1 article will lead to a mammoth, to cut doesn't seem right. I think some of those who proposes merge should contact the editors / wikiproject to try to merge or create a proper new article which will lend more weight with combined sources than just one per page. --Quek157 (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is fine to merge them to a TVB Awards page for all years and all categories but not each article for each year and each category. Acnetj (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am ambivalent on this. On one hand, it's very attractive proposition as that will be good. On the other hand, the current article is 115,284 bytes, given that we are merging based on categories, it should be reduced to 60,000 bytes (around). With 13 years, it will be 780,000 bytes (if we do plain formatting it may reduced to around 400,000 bytes). Unless we remove the nominees. I will think such a list is way too big and hard to understand. We have to really find a way to merge. And why am I copying and pasting my comments on every Afd everytime. I really hope nom will group all articles together. Do also note that the 2016 version is closed as "non-consensus" by another admin 78.26. I am not sure why these comments are not there and now suddenly there is an influx of such comments after that particular Afd was closed. I hope all are done in good faith. We may need to revisit the Afd also. --Quek157 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - Such lists are useful when properly referenced for Afd (ironically), see how the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Joong progresses, a list for 2016 SBS Drama Awards makes the notability of a person so clear. I know this is not an argment as to whether this list can meet WP:GNG but is a good reference for any admin / NPP / Afc participant to determine whether that person passes WP:GNG. --Quek157 (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Nice", Quek157 ? There is nothing "nice" about the process. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome:, what you meant by the ping, I really don't understand.? Do reply me if needed via my talkpage as Afd should not be a personal chat --Quek157 (talk) 09:55, 10 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola University[edit]

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

Promotional page for a defunct corporate training program that has been tagged for non-notability since 2010. Just about everything in this article has nothing to do with its subject, and neither do any of the references (none of which have inline citations). Meets pretty much all of the criteria for WP:VANISPAM. Chimneyrock (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VANISPAM and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for lack of you know what based on you know what else. -The Gnome (talk) 08:46, 5 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Academy 2018 controversies[edit]

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

Text just a copied section from Swedish Academy plus a dubious tabloid-like sentence added. The issue is covered in the original article, no need for a separate article. cart-Talk 01:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Chimneyrock (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, so let's see how this plays out and how important it will be in perspective compared to other controversies in connection to the Academy. In the more than 200 years it has existed there have been other controversies (sv:Svenska Akademien#Kontroverser inom Svenska Akademien) and a separate article for this seems like recentism. Sjö (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we have in Wikipedia all the articles this ship can carry? No, we don't. Does this mean that we too, each one of us, can be the proud parents of smiling newborn article? No, it doesn't. So what do we do with such brazen attempts at parenthood? I say, if they are posted, kill 'em. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjö. This belongs (at reasonable length) in the main article, not in a separate one. Potentially a separate article could be created later, but we still don't know what this leads to, exactly what's happened within the Acadamy's meetings and so on. /Julle (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjö and Julle. Too soon, not news, etc. It's easy to feel that what happens right now is obviously going to be of lasting importance, but it very rarely is. (OK, I do think that it will have some lasting importance, but not necessarily standalone article importance.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: walked by from zhwiki and saw the AfD tag. I mean, this is a particular scandal, right? Although small, this scandal has caused 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature delayed to 2019; I would think this is of enough importance. -- SzMithrandir ❈ Ered Luin ❈ 04:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary WP:SPLITOUT from Swedish Academy that currently is only 6315 B (1066 words) "readable prose size". The split from Special:Diff/839687855/839690025 to Special:PermaLink/839683624 does not follow WP:CORRECTSPLIT and thus violates WP:CWW. Sam Sailor 16:45, 9 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Aslam[edit]

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

This person doesn't meet the notability requirement for a Wikipedia article under WP:SPORTSPERSON. SenatorFreedom (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CRIN, played 16 first-class matches and 7 List A matches: [20]. SportingFlyer talk 03:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIN for playing in multiple FC/LA matches. Also press coverage here and info here of him being part of Sri Lankan team that won a domestic trophy when he was playing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see the applicable guidelines at wp:crin Husounde (talk) 05:19, 6 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Vega (jockey)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHORSERACING guideline. Written by a WP:COI account, lengthy article that makes his career sound very impressive. However, the truth is he won only one graded stakes race. That would be the 1988 Martha Washington Handicap, a grade 3 race. The guideline would require him to win multiple races. Also, that race was won during a jockey strike in which he crossed the picket-line, meaning that there was less competition than usual. His only national rs coverage comes from that race. Rusf10 (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the23:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)23:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)23:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)~ list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why do you think, Rusf10, that there is a WP:COI here? -The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it obvious? The user who created the page is User:Tony Vega jr--Rusf10 (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you noticed but the subject of the article, the eponymous Tony Vega, passed away in 2013 while the article was created in 2016. So, the contributor can be his offspring or a fan (in which case we have a bit of a bias, but not COI) or even the dear departed himself, which would make things here in Wikipedia very interesting. -The Gnome (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be that it's his son, hence jr.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Son of jockey Tony Vega documenting his father's life on film. Not illegitimate, as long as Dad was genuinely notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, quite possibly, Rusf10. As I said, possible bias; not COI. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rush10, I have asked at a number of previous AfDs whether you have access to a news archive. I ask this again because it is important in assessing the notability of subjects that were prominent in the 1980s, as this jockey was. Article about a jockey who drew SIGCOV in at the start of his career in the 1980s, then his career seems to have faded. Athletic careers can be brief. I strongly urge article creator @Tony Vega jr: to return and: 1.) remove unsourced material, and 2. reduce hype. However, searches on Proquest new archive show enough WP:SIGCOV coverage to support notability. I did some minor revision and added a few sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existing references look fine to me. --RAN (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per sources in article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources to establish notability. See philly inquirer articles. Husounde (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NHORSERACING #2 demands Individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races or the equivalent level in their respective nations. Taking into account only Monmouth, there are 2 Grade I, 2 Grade II, 14 Grade III, and 14 ungraded races ran in it. The subject has won some 134 races there, and for this has been lauded with accolades, per sources. Statistically and logically, it's rather difficult to claim that all the races he won were ungraded ones. Other sources confirm multiple wins of significant races. Therefore, subject comfortably meets the required criteria for notability. -The Gnome (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I agree the text is infested with a huge colony of biased bacteria and needs some serious clean-up. If the article stays, I estimate about one third of the current text to remain in place. -The Gnome (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 You obviously have no clue about horse racing, or what being a successful jockey is. Tony Vega was a professional athlete (Jockey) who was very successful, Champion jockey at two different tracks as an Apprentice and was first jockey ever to win 100 races during Monmmouth's summer meet, and won over 1,000 races during a thirty year career. Vega competed against some of the greatest jockeys of all time from 1982-2012. Despite not winning any breeders cup or Triple Crown races, Vega won a bunch of stakes races, and rode in a couple dozen grade 1's, Grade 2's, and Grade 3's as well. Some of the more notable races vega competed in were The Cotillion Gr.1 (Now worth U.S. $1 Million), The Gr.1 Sapling, The Gr.1 Sorority, The Gr.1 United Nations Handicap, The All American handicap, The Gr.2 Black Eyed Susan stakes, The Gr.1 $750,000 NYRA Mile /Cigar Mile, The Gr.3 Martha Washington and many others.

Tony Vega also rode Hall of fame Champion Sprinter & Eclipse Award winner Precisionist to a third place finish behind legendary racehorse Forty Niner in the inaugural running of the NYRA Mile (Now known as The Cigar Mile) at Aqueduct racetrack, which is a very prestigious races in the U.S. during the fall/winter racing season. Also, the jockey strike only lasted a week and a half (in NY), and Vega continued to ride successfully against the regular NY riders which included Hall of Fame jockeys Jerry Bailey, Angel Cordero, Eddie Maple, Chris Antley, Jose Santos, Jean Cruet, Jorge Velasquez and more at Aqueduct, winning 18 races, 2nd in the NY jockey standings before moving his tack to a new track. Vega won the Grade 3 Martha Washington HDC at Laurel park in Maryland against his arch rival Jean Cruget who won Triple Crown aboard Seattle Slew, Julie Krone, who is the greatest female rider that ever lived, Kent Desormeaux who was North America's leading jockey for wins in the U.S.at that time,(Also won 2016 Preakness stakes aboard Exaggerator), among others. Tony Vega was the Dan Marino of Horse racing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Vega jr (talk • contribs)

I may not be a horse racing expert, but the WP:NHORSERACING guideline is clear. It doesn't matter who else he raced with or what horse he used (he doesn't inherit notability from the horse), the fact remains he only won one graded stakes race. Comparing him to Dan Marino (a hall-of-famer and MVP) is makes no sense at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Vega is on the hall of fame ballot, and its makes a lot of sense (Marino remark) because he never quite got the credit he deserved as one of the best QB, or one of the best, because he never won a Super Bowl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Vega jr (talk • contribs) 23:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We go by sources, Tony Vega jr; not your opinion or mine about Dan Marino, Tony Vega, or anyone else. Try and maintain a less confrontational attitude in these discussions. It not only facilitates the dialogue but helps your argument too. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the subject meets WP:NHORSERACING, Rusf10. It only takes a brief yet careful perusal of sources in the article along with an online tour. -The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rus, Tony, Listen to yourselves. Rusf10, people who create memorial pages deserve the sympathy of experienced editors, and kindly explanations of how we roll. Tony Vega jr. welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you join us in building an encyclopedia. Although if you do decide to stick around and do more editing, you will need to take the time to learn our rules of editing, and listen to the advice that experienced editors have offered above. We try very hard to judge pages by their merits, and to include only information that has been published by reliable sources, such as reputable newspapers. In this case, I strongly advise you to back off form editing this page and allow experienced editors decide whether this page will be kept and what aspects of Vega's career should be included. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Tony Vega Jr. You can write a blog entry or set up a web page or a Youtube video with his information on his father, and that can be used as a reference. Wikipedia should always reference an outside source and that can be what Tony Vega Jr., the son reminiscing about his father. --RAN (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ):That's really bad advice, see WP:RSSELF. Btw, didn't you get in trouble for doing something similar?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GNG. Close by WP:SNOWBALL? gidonb (talk) 06:07, 8 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.