Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 May	7 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uzumaki Sasaki[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. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails pornbio & gng & all that shizz. –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO as there is nothing new about fantasy themed porn as claimed in the article regarding his productions Atlantic306 (talk) 11:12, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Bentz[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor for a small town. Fails WP:GNG as not otherwise notable from his mayoral position, WP:NPOL, and Poloutcomes. SportingFlyer talk 22:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors of small towns don't get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing — but this just cites a small smattering of the purely routine local coverage that every mayor of everywhere would always be simply expected to have, which is not enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with Bearcat and SportingFlyer. Person does not meet NPOL or GNG. Some entries in local history texts, but that's it. This is just a small city, an the position is not in and of itself significant. I took a look at List of mayors of Murray, Utah, and the mayors preceding this one also fail GNG and NPOL. They too need to be AfD'd. I didn't look past this mayor. @Stundra: created that list and the first four mayors on the list (and maybe all of them?). He's not been very active of late, but he did make an edit recently on May 2nd. Hopefully he'll chime in here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William B. Hubbell[edit]

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

Served as mayor of a small town for two years. Not notable under WP:NPOL or poloutcomes and not notable enough to pass WP:GNG otherwsie. SportingFlyer talk 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors of small towns don't get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing — but this just cites a small smattering of the purely routine local coverage that every mayor of everywhere would always be simply expected to have, which is not enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar to this AfD; another mayor from a small city with almost no coverage in reliable sources. Some mentions in the New York Times, but not significant coverage sufficient to bring him above WP:GNG. Does not surpass WP:NPOL either. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Fields[edit]

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

Subject does not satisfy the notability requirements for American football, fails WP:NGRIDIRON WWGB (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ only finding fan-blog sites and discussion pages specific to Gerogia football. Hasn't generated enough press (that I can find) to pass WP:GNG. Would change my position if they were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Fields has not yet played a down in college ball, WP:NHSPHSATH is arguably the governing standard, and the article is a stub that need work. But this guy is that rare player who clearly meets the NHSPHSATH bar. A search of NewsLibrary.com turns up hundreds of articles focused on him. He's been rated by ESPN.com as the No. 1 guy in the 2018 recruiting class. See ESPN profile. Here are a few examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources: (1) this and this from ESPN.com; (2) this from USA Today; (3) this, this and this from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution; (4) this story about a documentary film crew covering his senior year; (5) this from Sports Illustrated; (6) this from The Philadelphia Inquirer; and (7) this from CBS Sports. Cbl62 (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, stuff like that would have me switch to Keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:00, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Olague[edit]

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

Written as an autobiography, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No reliable third party sources are to be found talking about this person in significant detail. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article summarises the subject's activities in various fields, involving notable associates, but without demonstrating notability in any, and making unsubstantiated claims. Substantial 3rd party references are needed, but I am finding no sources better than the "IMDb Mini Biography By: Timothy Olague". Fails WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom - I have also been unable to find any noteworthy references. BubbleEngineer (talk) 10:19, 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 07:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyst[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on a private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine funding news and / or WP:SPIP. The company releases various ranking lists, which get some mentions, but it's mostly self-promotion. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Cblanc1 with no other contriburions outside this topic, and then substantively edited by another SPAs Special:Contributions/BrooklynBrookeH. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertorial Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertorial agree Misterpottery (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HAT-P-15b[edit]

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

Fails all WP:NASTCRIT criteria. One discovery paper, no popular coverage, and the usual database entries. Lithopsian (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lithopsian (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. All the articles are nothing more than values that belong in a list. The entries I notice would be worth preserving are RA and DEC; the lists of planets don't seem to include any way of locating the objects.

Agree with deletion for all of the above HAT-P objects. Basic data for these objects is available in SIMBAD and other catalogs, and there's no need for Wikipedia to simply duplicate these basic data listings if there's no other noteworthy information about the object. Aldebarium (talk) 21:09, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Lüthy[edit]

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

Unsourced. Questionable notability. Seems to appear as an incidental character in the Anneliese Michel case and not otherwise noteworthy. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Watson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and gng Dom from Paris (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though the article is still in its formative stages, three news stories about the Honorable Watson have been found. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three news stories is not enough to make the mayor of a town of just 7K notable for that, because every mayor of everywhere could always show three news stories. Our notability criteria for mayors is not "every mayor of everywhere gets an automatic in", however — it's "this mayor has a credible claim to being more notable than most mayors". Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG (all sources so far appear trivial). SportingFlyer talk 02:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seattletimes helps GNG a little. If the article is deleted, consider adding something about her at Montpelier,_Vermont#Government. Perhaps when she becomes the vice presidential nominee in the next election, we'll have more sources we can use. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Domdeparis your nom doe not mention any sort of WP:BEFORE search. What sort of search did you do? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing over and above routine coverage that one would expect for a mayor in Google. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At 7K, Montpelier is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but the sourcing here is not strong enough to get her over the "more notable than the norm among a not inherently notable class of topic" hump. The slightly weird fact that the Seattle Times would reprint a wire service article about a municipal election in Vermont admittedly starts down the path toward making her more notable than the norm — but it doesn't finish that race all by itself as the article's only piece of more than just WP:ROUTINE local coverage. Passing GNG is not just a question of whether the number of reliable sources in the article exceeds one, because every mayor of everywhere can always show n>1 sources — it's a question of the range and depth and volume of sourcing that can be shown, as well as the strength of the basic notability claim that the sources are supporting, but the range and depth and volume of sources shown here are not unusual enough to make a smalltown mayor a special case over and above most other smalltown mayors. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was the admin who declined the A7 speedy on this. No opinion either way on notability, but despite its size the town is a state capital, there is a populated category for Mayors of Vermont, and the previous incumbent has an article without any obvious sources of notability beyond the mayoral position. I also consider the REI Co-op Journal ref [1] to be some indication of non-local significance, as it is a national publication, though by no means a high-quality one. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I looked at that one, and it seemed to be mostly some sort of web-shop. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While sourcing is still weak, I think the item on her successful multi-year push for statewide varsity status of "Ultimate" adds a separate source of notability. Several sources have mentioned her as an "award-winning" teacher. Details about that award might add a 3rd source, and those must be out there. I also think that Espresso Addict's point about Montpelier being a state capital has merit. A state capital automatically has exposure to state-wide or regional issues (and coverage) in a way that other towns of similar size do not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a possibly relevant source in The Science Teacher, Volume 74, Issues 1-6, p56. However the Google Books snippet does not show enough for me to use the source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just added sourced content on her Knowles Senior teaching Fellowship, and an appearance before the State Education Committee. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And on a Teaching Certification. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are notability claims in and of themselves. (A teacher, with a teaching certification? Well, I'll be, I haven't heard of anything so crazy in at least five minutes now!) Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The teacher certification is an optional one, given by a national organization. You might expect to find one or two teachers with this certification per school. Still, this is comparable in politics to being a city council member, not comparable to being, say, a state legislator, which seems to be the minimum level in politics to rate a Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think when one combines:

the teaching certification/award (described by the source a "very prestigious" and said to be givn to fewer than 1.5% of teachers nationally),
the teaching senior fellowship, awarded by an outside non-profit (also described as prestigious by the news source),
the years-long state-wide advocacy for the acceptance of Ultimate as a varsity-level sport, and its eventual success,
the advocacy for the international student program before the state legislature,
the grant to plan said international student program
coaching a sports team that has gone to state-wide championships twice (mentioned in two sources now cited in the article , but not currently in the article itself)
serving on the town council for several years
being elected mayor of a state capitol city
Being described by a national publication as one of the "five coolest mountain-town mayors"
Coverage in the Seattle Times, about as non-local as one can get, then

The result adds up to notability, although far from the strongest case for notability ever seen here. No one item alone amounts to notability, but taken together, I think this is over the line. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected some of the information that you added and sourced it. The news source that you cited had not verified the claims I think. Only 3.3% of tearchers are certified it's true but there is a 65% pass rate. According to sources I have looked at the small number of certified teachers is due to the cost, 2500$, and the 400 hours of work necessary to do it. The source states this is the gold standard for teachers, I think that a doctor's degree is higher. The coolest mayor claim is in a blog on a co-op site that sells mountain gear. Not exactly a reliable source for notability I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article could use some cleanup and further expansion, not deletion, per WP:ATD.Hmlarson (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Aside from the views of a minuscule number of Wikipedia users, becoming mayor of a U.S. state capital, no matter how small, is more than enough for recognition. Her bio deserves a further expansion and clean-up, but not deletion. Watson's status as the mayor of a capital, even if it is the smallest, is fine. It's also unusual to delete an article on a sitting, incumbent state capital mayor. All that said, there's a sports and athletics aspect to her bio and career as well. Watson led a successful multi-year effort to have Ultimate Frisbee recognized as varsity sport. In 2017, thanks largely to Watson, Vermont approved Ultimate's varsity status, becoming the first state in the country to do so. Her efforts have been recognized not just by local and state publications (which is more than enough), but also by the Associated Press, sports publications and newspapers outside Vermont. It's a cool bit of both sports history and women's history. I've added sources about her Ultimate campaign and plan to add more about her political career as well. It's an example of why we should never throw the baby out with the bathwater, which unfortunately is too often the case with mayors on Wikipedia. Scanlan (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Scanlan (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is a failure of understanding WP:GNG, right there. You don't get automatic notability for becoming mayor of a state capital, that's straight up WP:ILIKEIT. SportingFlyer talk 17:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where specifically does it say verbatim "You don't get automatic notability for becoming mayor". Scanlan (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLOUTCOMES. I quote: Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office). I don't see additional notability here. SportingFlyer talk 22:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proof that it is thanks largely to Watson that ultimate frisbee was recognised as a varsity sport? The source quotes her "Anne Watson said she began the push for varsity recognition seven years. " Sounds like she is blowing her own horn and this is a primary source for that statement. Here's another source about the same story that doesn't mention her. [2] Dom from Paris (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same Associated Press story by Wilson Ring, nearly word-for-word, that's already cited in the article under Daily Hampshire Gazette]. The only difference between the two is that Boston.com edits down the length a bit. Otherwise, same AP article, author, and source. Scanlan (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see a sourcing notability issue if a paper took the same AP article published elsewhere and edited the subject out completely while still maintaining a decent length to the article? SportingFlyer talk 22:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I checked out the other 4 mayors of this town that have pages and 3 were also state representatives and the other that wasn't is going through Afd. The attempts to bolster her notability with reports of her very normal educational career and her ultimate frisbee activities do nothing to show real notability. Even the wording in the article is misleading "first female mayor... since" suggesting that it is noteworthy, whereas there seems to have been quite a few female mayors of the town over the past few decades. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there my judgement differs from yours. I do agree that the 'first female mayor" line is misleading and I will reword it -- it i a recent change. But I think the Ultimate Frisbee activities are probably enough for notability on their own. And when you combine everything -- well just how often does one find a person who has been president of a ton council and then a Mayor, granted of a small town, but still a state capitol; who has coached a high-school sports team to the state finals in multiple years, with one state championship; who has led a multi-year push for state-wide recognition of a new sport; who has been through a 5-year junior teaching fellowship and now holds a senior fellowship; who has received two further separate fellowships/grants from NGOs; who has appeared in testimony on a quite different issue before a state legislative committee; and whose article now includes some twenty cited sources? Are you going to tell me that one person combining all of that is "very normal"? Well if you are, i disagree. And it seems that several other editors disagree as well. This is well within the judgement zone, and I don't think a closer will see a consensus to delete here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an interesting case. She is a mayor, teacher, writer and coach. Montpellier is a small town but it is the state capital. I think there are enough RS to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:11, 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 delete per G5. (non-admin closure) KingAndGod 04:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sin and the Sentence (song)[edit]

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

Fails any reasonable notability criteria. This is clearly a WP:SOCK of Elchezinazo (talk · contribs). Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5. KingAndGod 16:34, 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 delete per G5 (non-admin closure) KingAndGod 04:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible (Skillet song)[edit]

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

Fails any reasonable notability criteria. This is clearly a WP:SOCK of Elchezinazo (talk · contribs). Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5. KingAndGod 16:34, 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 delete per G5 (non-admin closure) KingAndGod 04:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whirlwind (Skillet song)[edit]

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

Fails any reasonable notability criteria. This is clearly a WP:SOCK of Elchezinazo (talk · contribs). Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5. KingAndGod 16:34, 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 20:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (2006 album)[edit]

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

No indication of notability - would redirect, but can't find the series to which the lead refers. Was prodded, but the prod was declined, apparently it had been deleted before via prod. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of notability. This is possibly the soundtrack for Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (2001 television series), which is currently a redlink.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:57, 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 keep. Enigma^msg 07:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Barreca[edit]

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

WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones, of a writer and academic whose claims of notability are depending far too strongly on primary sources (her own writing about herself or other things, the websites of directly affiliated organizations, etc.) with very little evidence of reliable source coverage about her shown at all. As always, a writer does not get over WP:GNG by being the bylined author of all or even most of her article's sources -- she gets over GNG by being the subject of media coverage. Even the glowing review quotes (which are not a basis for notability in and of themselves) are referenced not to any media coverage of those quotes being spoken, but solely to her own self-published PR profile on the website of a conference she spoke at. Writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they and their work exist, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this is for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that there is enough coverage out there to meet WP:GNG. Here is one example that I found without too much trouble where she is the subject of a Chicago Tribune article. Her named/distinguished professorship at UConn would generally also meet WP:PROF; she’s not listed on the UConn Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor page yet, but I found a letter online indicating that she has been recommended for it in the last few days. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Was this the letter you had in mind? I figure there'll be a news release from the university soon enough. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes - thanks for adding that and thanks to David Eppstein for adding this entry to the deletion sorting category for academics and educators. I’d planned to do both one I got home and wasn’t working from a mobile device, but I forgot about it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough highly cited works to pass WP:Prof and WP:Author. Also Distinguished Professorship (provided sources are ratified). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I found enough prominently-published reviews of her books to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. And if we can document the distinguished professorship she would also clearly pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe her widely-covered books and nationally syndicated weekly column make her suitable for WP:AUTHOR. She was officially given distinguished professorship Sunday May 6, and added to the Board of Trustees earlier this year which surely qualifies her for WP:PROF. In response to her not being "covered" in media, she was on Oprah, will look for the link. —Dylan Smith (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2018 (ET)
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR. Sufficient 3rd party reviews of her books. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:21, 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. Enigma^msg 20:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Mooney[edit]

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

Article about a television series which never actually made it on the air. As always, a television series that never actually got broadcast does not pass WP:TVSHOW just because its initial entry into the production pipeline is technically verifiable to glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of the network's overall announcement of its production slate — a series has to actually go to air, and receive substantive reliable source coverage about it, to clear our notability standards for television series. Apart from the two glancing namechecks, however, the only other references here are a non-notable Blogspot blogger's post about how people keep asking her if she's related to Paul Mooney because her name is Paula Mooney, and an IMDb page — but IMDb is not a reliable or notability-supporting source in and of itself either, and even the "overview" given here is a barely concealed cut and paste of the IMDb description, posing WP:COPYVIO problems. There's just no real basis for notability here, if it never aired and can't be significantly better sourced as notable for some other reason. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed never-aired pilot. Nate • (chatter) 23:10, 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. czar 16:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fairest Of The Mall Episodes[edit]

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

Single-entry "episode list" of a thing that was never actually a television series: it was a failed pilot that went to air as a one-off television film, but never had any further "episodes" to list at all. Further, the film doesn't even have a Wikipedia article about the film — a prior attempt got deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairest of the Mall in 2014, and then this got created in 2017 in what looks suspiciously like a deliberate attempt to dodge the original AFD result by giving it an alternate title (because what other reason could there be to call it, or structure it as, an "episode list" instead of a straight article about a television film?) And of course, even if enough reliable sourcing about its airing as a film could be found to recreate it now, this would still be a misleading title not appropriate for retention as a redirect. So either way, this is just a pointless article that completely misrepresents its actual topic. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; according to another wiki, it only aired once on Christmas 2015 to be a write-off on Disney's 4Q results (though strangely one of those 'we'll steal your life savings by saying your kid can act' traveling outfits thinks it's still casting for some reason). Nate • (chatter) 04:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No wiki article even exists for the show. Ajf773 (talk) 02:56, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler Lexx[edit]

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

Non-notable "producer" with a lot of big name drops and no sources to actually support it. A search brings up virtually nothing aside from a paid advertisement, some random blogs and some weird aggregate sites (and a very interesting yelp review about his studio.) I also did a newspaper and book search and got exactly 0 hits. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I found evidence that they are a record producer with links to notable artist, I could not find enough independent reliable sources to indicate notability. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage from independent sources. Septrillion (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should not be deleted for lack of reliable sources because the contributor has added reliable sources and will continue to improve the quality of this article. DigitalSculpture (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: DigitalSculpture (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Chiltington & Thakeham Cricket Club[edit]

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

Non-notable minor cricket club. Reads like club website Heliotom (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. We've pretty much hosted a fan page for a decade! When the article states that they recently won the Sussex Premier Cricket League Division Five title, it doesn't fill you with any hope it would pass any notablity guidance. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Sindh[edit]

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

This newspaper fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers and also fails to meet basic GNG. Never produced award winning work and no significant history either. Saqib (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:12, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of layout engines (Document Object Model)[edit]

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

Woefully incomplete and out of date. It hasn't had a meaningful update in over 7 years. And given how much browsers and the web have changed in that time, it would be a major effort to salvage this page. Best to remove it. Pmffl (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a weak nomination rationale, however the sentiment is correct, this article is unintelligible and not encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least recycle. There's a lot of good information here which shouldn't be lost. People are always going to be writing (often in absurd detail) about the latest developments, but here we have a good history of the subject. Let's not throw that out. If it really bothers you that it's not up to date, that can be fixed by bringing it up to date. In the alternative, rename it to something like Comparison of layout engines from 1990 to 2012 or whatever. Wikipedia is too much focused on what's new and shiny. I'm OK with merging this into some other existing article, or refactoring it in some other way, but let's not discard the information. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the historical value argument, which is an important part of why I cleaned up the HTML and CSS comparison articles a week ago. (But I won't be doing any more personally.) The problems with the DOM article are worse than those peers, though, in 2 respects: the tables are in worse shape, and it's a more abstruse technical topic that would probably require legit expertise to know what's going on. -Pmffl (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just now renamed this article to Comparison of JavaScript engines (DOM support). After responding to RoySmith, it occurred to me that the DOM is best approached from the JavaScript (JS) perspective. As I recently made clear in my rewrite of the web browser engine article, the 2 engines of a modern browser (layout and JS) stay in sync via the DOM. But in terms of actual DOM function call usage, that's primarily a JS programmer concern. So this DOM comparison article really is best categorized under the JS engine umbrella.

So instead of deleting it, it's now in the purview of the wikipedians who would be capable of updating and maintaining it: the JavaScript programmers.

-Pmffl (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:12, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiku Brands[edit]

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

I removed the advertising, but am i doubt about notability. Thesources dont seem sufficient for WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article as an employee of Hiku Brands. I am very sorry for not following Wikipedia policies. I simply didn’t know it is that complicated. I clearly stated my conflict of interest several days ago. Hiku Brands is a notable company with the significant coverage at the Canadian media. I’ve added editing suggestions at the Talk page (as requested by the Conflict of interest policy). It has many links to trusted sources. Again, I am very sorry for the confusion. -- Tokyosmokio (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alterations made (just) after AfDed I feel move it out of the delete category. Only 2 weeks ago it was suitable for speedy and was improved out of that category. While primary editor has COI, it is now declared and the edit suggested and partially implemented has sufficiently improved it re. notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I put a speedy on this when it was first made, but it's looking in better shape now. The main contributor has clearly stated their COI, the sources look okay to me, and it seems notable to me. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked at each reference with an eye on whether the reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Sadly, not one of the references meets the criteria. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND are easy to understand - we are looking for a reference that provides in-depth information on the company using intellectually independent content. This globeandmail reference is a mention-in-passing simple stating that Hiku has been added to Canada's largest cannabis-related exchange-traded fund (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). Thie Bloomberg reference relies on a statement from DOJA's CEO (fails WP:ORGIND). This canada.ca reference is a list of authorized licensed producers (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). This thestar.com reference is a mention in passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). This straight.com reference relies on quotations/interview with Trent Kitsch, president of Hiku, for Hiku-related information (fails WP:ORGIND). The ft.com reference is a simple list of share price (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). This newcannabisventures.com reference is a press release (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). This ctvnews.ca reference and This theglobeandmail.com reference this thegloveandmail reference are both exactly the same and are both mentions-in-passing related to the merger and based on a company announcement (fails WP:ORGIND). Similarly, this ctvnews.ca reference has no named journalist as author and is a mention-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). This westmanjournal.com reference is a mention-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). Thie cbc.ca reference is a mention-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). This newswire reference is a press release (fails WP:ORGIND). Thie straight.com reference is based on a company announcement (fails WP:ORGIND). This financialpost.com reference is based on a Hiku press release (fails WP:ORGIND). Based on the above analysis of sources and my own searching, I cannot find any intellectually independent references and as such this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDETH. Just a private company going about its business. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion or an extension of a corporate web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable to me after reviewing these sources:

http://business.financialpost.com/business/hiku-merges-with-weedmd-in-240-million-cannabis-deal-focused-on-seniors-and-retail

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/4-20-from-protesting-cannabis-prohibition-to-celebrating-legalization-1.4627743

http://business.financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/tokyo-smoke-goes-public-as-cannabis-companies-eye-retail

https://www.straight.com/cannabis/1056971/hiku-calls-sales-licence-acquisition-crowning-milestone

- Mar11 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given we have new sources to consider a further relist is justified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:10, 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 redirect to Asterix Conquers Rome. Sandstein 09:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix Annual 1980[edit]

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

No evidence that this annual is in any way notable. Such books get produced for many popular characters, but are very rarely notable in themselves (they are not new, canonical adventures, but reprints plus some games and so on). Fram (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~Delete~~. This is not just any old annual with reprints plus some games etc. etc., it is AFAICT the only time an English language version of Asterix Conquers Rome was published. I have copied this source from the latter to the article under discussion, and you should think more good sources were out there, but I can't find them. Anybody else? I won't mind a redirect to Asterix Conquers Rome where the book is mentioned. But as the article stands now, NBOOK is not met. Sam Sailor 12:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC) —Amended, Sam Sailor 15:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per ATD, PRESERVE and R, this article cannot be deleted for lack of notability because it could be merged and redirected to Asterix Conquers Rome. I don't think that annuals can generally be presumed non-notable as not all are reprints (unlike this one) and some do receive coverage (eg Doctor Who and Blue Peter respectively). James500 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And what would you suggest we merge into Asterix Conquers Rome that is not already mentioned there? Sam Sailor 08:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asterix Conquers Rome. Nothing worth merging and probably not entirely useful, but redirects are cheap. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with a redirect outcome. Sam Sailor 15:23, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frente Cívico[edit]

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

This article was written by user:Frente Civico.I would have PRODded it but it survived a past VfD. It think that our standards have tightened considerably since then. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article doesn't remotely approach the sourcing standards of the modern project, but then again, it's a relic of 2005, when it survived a deletion nomination. That said, there's a surprisingly deep well of sources to draw from for article improvement here. For example:

Bernal, José Carlos Hesles (2008). "'¿Le gusta este jardín?': el conflicto por el Casino de la Selva". Secuencia (in Spanish) (71): 83–101. doi:10.18234/secuencia.v0i71.1044.

Rogers, Kate; Haggerty, Megan (2013). "Learning Through Volunteering in Social Movements: The Case of the Frente Cívico". In Duguid, Fiona; Mündel, Karsten; Schugurensky, Daniel (eds.). Volunteer Work, Informal Learning and Social Action. Sense Publishers. pp. 195–218. ISBN 978-94-6209-231-0.

Now, quite a bit of the coverage of this Mexican organization is, predictably, in Spanish. I'm not fluent, and my comprehension level is poor, so I'm not ideally suited to tackle article cleanup on this one. But it's clear that the sources do exist to permit that cleanup to be done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but allow competent recreation. Currently undersourced, badly written and promotional. Sandstein 16:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I usually loathe third relists, maybe this can put the discussion on the radar of editors who can assess the sources provided, allowing a definite consensus to be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current state of the article is irrelevant – it can be improved. The question is whether the subject is notable and should have an article, and that is clearly the case. I just translated Casino de la Selva from the Spanish wiki. It could use a major expansion from the many sources available online. These sources also show that the struggle to save this important part of Mexico's cultural heritage received a great deal of public attention. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2018
Keep This is certainly notable even if there's COI issue. (Which is very old and meaningless in itself, as the user has not edited for 13 years). Also searching with the movement's full name yielded more result including several academic books like University of Toronto-published Not for Sale: Decommodifying Public Life (ISBN 1551117525) and Lecciones y vivencias ambientales en Morelos: las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (ISBN 6070235398). –Ammarpad (talk) 01:30, 14 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 07:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suji Park[edit]

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

Prod removed by article creator with rationale "disagree with prod". Article does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST or pass WP:GNG. Searches are complicated by there being a more well known US chef with the same name but I haven't found any significant coverage and all the references presently in the article don't appear to establish significant coverage either. ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 09:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals notability is established for artists who have received significant critical attention. The sources used in this article constitute such attention. MurielMary (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep - seems to be recognised by a number of regional museums. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:CREATIVE point 4 The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. NZFC^(talk) 21:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further to what User:NZFC has to say, point 4d would at least apply to the Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki. Schwede 66 23:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- it does not, as several museum collections means more than one.104.163.159.237 (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't matter if the subject meets an SNG when she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is the case here. Vexations (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see one citation which is NOT related to the subject (the ODT). All the others are art-related and therefore related to the subject. Or am I missing something??? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:CREATIVE point 4 Theredproject (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 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. Sandstein 09:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fundera[edit]

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

Fails the updated WP:NCORP deadline. it ~looks like~ there are lots of refs but almost all of them are not OK for notability. Created by what looks like a throwaway SOCK for UPE and heavily edited recently by a promotional SPA account. WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:08, 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. Sandstein 09:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Harburg[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO: no indication of how he's independently notable of his current company. All coverage of him I can find online in WP:Reliable sources is passing mentions in connection with his work at MSA Capital, and WP:Notability is not inherited. Proposed deletion contested by article creator without comment, an hour before the prod expiry. Part of a WP:Walled garden with MSA Capital and Jenny Zeng, all created by the same WP:SPA, who has repeatedly added unsourced promotional claims to all three articles. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly contributed by an undeclared paid editor. No claim of notability is made outside his employment. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blyat (album)[edit]

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

Redirect to capital bra, most of the sources are promotional/amazon link to buy album or not-independent sources/primary and WP:BEFORE check didn't yield many good sources either Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped some sources and added a couple.--Lirim.Z (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NALBUM#2, reaching #3 on German and Austrian and #5 on Swiss album charts. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:22, 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. The "delete" opinions are more convincing. The two articles about him are titled "Did you see this Hamilton native on WrestleMania?" and "Hamilton native guest host on GAC show", which makes it clear that this is coverage by a local journal based solely on local interest. Such coverage is regularly attributed little importance in establishing notability in AfD discussions. Sandstein 09:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hamilton (announcer)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are two WP:RS that are articles devoted directly to him. In addition he appears weekly on WWE TV. I believe this is enough to meet WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same reason as above. Hansen Sebastian 12:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansen Sebastian (talk • contribs)
Delete I do not see anything that counts as a reliable source covering Hamilton.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Galatz. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources include primary source, an internet database with no criteria for inclusion, WP:ROUTINE results, and two stories from the same local news source. Not exactly significant coverage IMO. Nikki♥311 02:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a tricky one, since none of the sources currently in the article demonstrate notability in my opinion: two sources from his hometown in a local-boy-makes-good article, a database, and two articles from his employer's website and the remaining article refers to him only once in passing. However, a before search brings up a lot of specialty wrestling hits. There's nothing in the before search I understand well enough to argue him over the WP:GNG line, so I lean delete based on what's there now, but someone who cared enough might be able find some independent sources that could get him over the line. SportingFlyer talk 07:18, 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. Sandstein 09:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lee Gallery[edit]

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

Apparently not notable by our new and more stringent standards for businesses (and probably not by the old ones either). It carries on the routine business of a gallery, buying and selling works of art, and receives some routine coverage as a result. Some of those works are by famous artists, and thus attract media attention; but the purveyor does not inherit notability from the notability of the products purveyed – a car dealer is not notable because he sells cars of notable makes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because I think there is enough coverage about the gallery to establish notability. Take for example this article in artnews the profiles the gallery upon its opening of a New York location. [3]. This is not routine coverage. Additionally there are many reviews of exhibitions at the galleries. I think it’s an interesting question as to whether the notability of the artists represented by the gallery should or should not have any impact on our assessment of the notability of the gallery. Or to put it a different way: should a review of an artist’s Show at a gallery contribute to establishing the notability of the gallery? The review is about the artist, but it’s a show that is taking place at the gallery. In that regard, it’s not about inheriting notability (as if a gallery could gain notability from an exhibition They had shown at a different gallery) but rather about the notability of the exhibition that also notable artist has produced at this gallery. The meaningfulness of such reviews is especially clear in contrast to DTR Modern Galleries the other gallery currently here at AfD. Theredproject (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly an ongoing art business concern. Numerous exhibitions of contemporary art at the gallery attest to its notability. Sources are numerous relating to the gallery as an ongoing business concern. Bus stop (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, there is an "ongoing art business concern" not far from my house where you can get framed pictures of elephants and tigers at reasonable prices. 104.163.159.237 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly none of the Keep !voters above have read the guidelines. This is a run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability. Most of the coverage is based on announcements and/or interviews, none are intellectually independent and all fail WP:ORGIND. Other coverage provides information on exhibits but noting about the business of the gallery and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: just a directory listing for an unremarkable private gallery. Does not meet WP:NCORP and GNG; significant RS coverage not found. The fact that it's an on-going business concerns is immaterial in notability discussions, since Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of all businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is basically an advertisement for the gallery, which on its own has done little that merits notability. The fact that it shows notable artists is does not make the gallery notable, just as the fact that notable artists but X brand of paint paint does not make the paint notable. The sources are of the business promotion type, meaning all in all this fails GNG.104.163.159.237 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery is obviously notable. It is pointless to argue that an ongoing exhibition schedule of artwork does not contribute to the notability of the institution, and sources are available providing a small amount of commentary on the gallery itself. Bus stop (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question and Comment: I am trying to understand how HighKing, K.e.coffman, and 104.163.159.237 are interpreting NCORP, and I am concerned that NCORP is not particularly suited to evaluating art galleries. What I believe I am understanding, is that your interpretations of NCORP argues that a review of an exhibition cannot establish notability because it is not independent. Is this a correct understanding? Furthermore, it is considered inherited, because the review is of the art not the gallery -- is this correct? --Theredproject (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Theredproject, I also look forward to reading what those three editors have to say; meanwhile, here's my take: the crucial bit of WP:NCORP is WP:CORPDEPTH: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". With the exception of the one artnews source that you have mentioned above – which is mostly about Lee, but does have some coverage of his gallery business – I don't see where we can find such "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" of this particular business. This gallery carries on the same routine activities as any other – it promotes artists and tries to sell (or sometimes buy) their works, often by holding exhibitions. Those artists may at times be sufficiently notable that a show attracts the attention of the press (and of course the gallery does its best to make sure that it does). In general, a review of such a show discusses the artist and the artist's work, but often does not contain any coverage of the gallery itself beyond a mention of the place and dates of the exhibition (e.g., “Valerie Snobeck: Reservoirs” runs January 13 through February 11, 2016 at Simon Lee Gallery, Hong Kong); in my view, that falls precisely under "brief mentions and routine announcements".

This question has come up before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galleria d'Arte Maggiore. There I wrote "A car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies. How is this different?". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different? While art may be cars, meat or clothing, it is not necessarily any of these things. We are talking about an art gallery. Art is very loosely defined. It is not necessarily oil paint on canvas. In order to provide coverage of art it is helpful to include coverage of art galleries because that is where much art receives exposure to the public. We need not deprive the reader of access to information about the fundamental means by which art reaches wider audiences than an artist's small circle of acquaintances. Art galleries play a crucial role in ferrying artworks from the artist's studio to the more or less permanent collections of the more august art museums. The art galleries themselves maintain a minimal presence because they do not wish to overshadow the work contained therein. They are not only physically empty spaces but they allow the sort of art commonly shown to define the gallery itself. An owner or operator of an art gallery is transmitting his or her taste in art to the public by the sort of art chosen for exhibition within its space. The true gauge of notability for an art gallery should be the notability of the artwork shown and consistent long-term schedules of exhibitions whether that artwork is notable or not. Reviews of shows therefore are not to be overlooked and in fact should be looked to for an accurate indication of the notability of art galleries. Unfortunately our notability guidelines overlook the factors that are specifically pertinent to art galleries, resulting in the needless deletion of relatively important articles. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 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. Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Yamazaki[edit]

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

Unnotable composer and nothing obvious to merge/redirect into. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 05:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can find nothing to justify WP:GNG, even when I searched in Japanese language sources. However, he has contributed as composer to a number of notable games (which have their own coverage, and I did check they were notable), and hence satisfies WP:CREATIVE. See 3). Ross-c (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

- You could literally make the case for every single video game personnel then. If he doesn't have independent coverage, then he shouldn't be considered notable. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Usually notability cannot be inherited, but WP:BIO seems the only specific category to not possess that statement, and reading it, it seems rather blurred. So having a look at the 4 points of WP:CREATIVE:

(important figure/widely cited) clearly isn't the case, or we'd see the refs;
(new technique etc) no indication of that being the case;
(co-create well-known work) that it has to be the primary part of the work would seem to rule out having provided music to games - if you named the top 3 people in the game's creation, he wouldn't be in it;
(works have won significant acclaim) - have we seen actual refs praising the music of these games, otherwise it can't count Nosebagbear (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and the fact no independent coverage appears to exist in Japanese sources as per above seems to be the clincher. The WP:CREATIVE argument is a non-starter if there's literally nothing out there about him. SportingFlyer talk 07:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:MUSICBIO & just a directory listing. Lacks WP:SIGCOV to justify an article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 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. Consensus to delete this content but no consensus about whether and where to redirect. Sandstein 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gadaado[edit]

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

This is another extremely messy case. First off, the name itself, as we spell it, seems to come entirely from news accounts of the rescue of Jessica Buchanan and Poul Hagen Thisted; these accounts, however, inconsistently describe Gadaado, some calling it a town, others not specifying what it is, one at least referring to an "encampment". Geonames, however, has other ideas, for first of all it calls it "Cadaado", and second refers to it as a "locality". Where they point, there are three nearby areas which have the typical hedge-encircled cleared areas which on finds in some of the towns, but there is no trace of a building at any of the three— and which of them might be C/Gadaado? To confuse matters further, our article on the rescue refers to the place as "Adow", which is a name that nobody else seems to recognize. If it weren't for the raid, I would absolutely advocate deletion; possibly, however, we should point at the article on the raid, but then we would need to do something about the naming ambiguity there. Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adado and list as an alternate spelling as Cadaado already is. Content on the piracy and hostage incident(s) should also be included. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per FloridaArmy. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose that vigorously. Adado is in a completely different part of the country and is a pretty big city, and there's no evidence that the one is mistaken for the other. Mangoe (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would redirecting to the rescue page be a good target?L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we can resolve the naming issue among the various sources for that article. Mangoe (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since we can't agree on a redirect, let's delete it entirely. It's completely unverifiable and may be incorrectly named. I can't do any further sleuthing like I typically do since the state of the article is literally less than 10 words. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 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. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 09:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innathe Program[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM - doesn't have anything proving it to be a notable film. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Nomination based only on the current state of the article, and ignores the fact that participation of notable actors is an indicator of notability. Nominator is reminded to comply with WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has a notable cast and crew it should have been reviewed in reliable sources even if they are no longer online Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per A306.It's irrational to expect that a film with so many notable casts and crew failed to garner any criticsl reviews et al.The sole plausible chance is that we are missing out on retrieving sourcing from an era, which is hardly available over internet.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:55, 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. Sandstein 08:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1NB[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMG, no charted music. Abdotorg (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where might one look up past charting positions for Korean music? RatiziAngelou^contribs 17:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Official Korean music charts can be seen at http://gaonchart.co.kr Abdotorg (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with historical searching on this site. I'm not sure where to look to see if they have charted or not. I would think with the viral fame "Stalker" had it may have made a dent somewhere on the charts but I don't know where to look. RatiziAngelou^contribs 17:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally checked the Gaon digital, download and album charts before proposing article deletion and can confirm that none of their releases have charted. Abdotorg (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do they not qualify as notable for any of the other 11 of the 12 reasons in WP:NMG? 10 says "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, ..... notable film" and I'm not sure how that directly translates for YouTube clips but aren't music videos noteworthy after a certain threshold? RatiziAngelou^contribs 20:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The group did not meet the criteria listed at WP:BAND, nor did it receive any coverage from reliable sources outside of the routine to satisfy WP:GNG or establish notability. ℯ xplicit 01:50, 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. Sandstein 09:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Robins (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor. Several sources, but none of them convey notability under WP:GNG (many are directory listings or sources that are also possibly WP:OR, for instance which year his child passed away) and fails WP:NPOL completely so we can't otherwise assume notability. It also appears there are a number of mayors with articles for this municipality that probably don't pass WP:GNG either. SportingFlyer talk 06:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN, Keep. I did a little expand on this old-time mayor, now sourced from obits in the old New York Herald Tribune and New York Times. Also added an academic article and a contemporary magazine article about Norwalk's construction of an early municipal electric power plant (a first in the state). Nom mentions son; although I chose not to add it to article, there was quite a lot of press about the fact that Robbins son (his only child) was murdered, the case drew a fair amount of press at the time. I do not see how deletion this sort of article helps the project, especially now that it is sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the research! Unfortunately, I can't access those sources for my own review, and I'm still not certain I would agree they make this mayor notable for reasons other than being a mayor of a relatively small municipality, so I won't withdraw at this time. SportingFlyer talk 18:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Norwalk is located inside the New York metropolitan area (it's in that little panhandle of Connecticut that pokes into Westchester County), so I'm not convinced that New York City newspapers giving him obituaries upon his death constitutes notability in and of itself. But apart from the obituaries, this is otherwise far too dependent on primary sources, and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, to say that he passes WP:GNG — literally the only other source left that escapes both of those disqualifiers is purely WP:ROUTINE verification of an election result in an even more local-to-Norwalk newspaper, which is a kind of source that every mayor in the history of mayoralty could always show. The inclusion test for mayors of smaller cities is not just being able to cite a few sources to verify that they existed — it's being able to cite enough sources to demonstrate that they're significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other smaller cities, but the sourcing here just isn't convincingly doing that. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mayors receive routine coverage; that should be a given. Obituaries in the individual's locality is routine; their election results are, too, routine. Notice the trend? Being verifiable does not grant a politician notability, and these other sources--these passing mentions--do not convince me that GNG or NPOL are satisfied. A heymann can be a positive thing when it isn't little more than window dressing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:28, 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. Sandstein 08:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Hit 30 Countdown[edit]

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

No sources, possibly non-notable? ViperSnake151 Talk 05:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm actually the original creator here, but I did so at a very different time in Wikipedia's history — in 2005, our notability standards weren't nearly as dependent on the distinction between reliable and primary sources as they are now. Rather, the fact of multistation syndication was considered an "inherent" notability claim for a radio program, such that as long as the program's own website technically verified the fact as true, the program was "entitled" to have a Wikipedia article and exempted from ever actually having to cite any non-primary sources. That's no longer how it works, however — over the 13 years since, we've learned a lot of hard lessons about how much that approach left us open to advertorialism and even outright hoaxery, so our notability rules have been rightly and wisely tightened up a lot more. But this simply doesn't have the depth of coverage needed to meet the stricter standards that apply in 2018. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it aired on more than Newcap stations, it would be one thing, but this show never expanded beyond that basic number of stations into the rest of the country. Ottawa is it for a major market for this show, so you might as well call it equivalent to a regional countdown show that is in the minor leagues of Canadian radio. Nate • (chatter) 23:15, 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. Sandstein 08:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adeline Sylvia Eugeina Ama Yeboakua Akufo-Addo[edit]

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

incidental sourcing, only claim to fame seems to be spouse of a former Ghanian president; notability is not WP:INHERITED Wolfson5 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTINHERITED also says Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. Adam9007 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that reason. Imagine deciding Barbara Bush didn't qualify. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The policy sentence being quoted explicitly refers to national First Ladies as a counter-example. Yes, her only claim to fame seems to be being the spouse of a Ghanaian president, and that is enough inherent (ipso facto) notability. There wouldn't be that counter-example in the policy if it hadn't been thought out. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Actually, WP:ATA is only an essay, at least in name. That said, I have wondered if we ought to promote it to a guideline. Adam9007 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Vermont (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The political notability guideline should perhaps be expanded to include spouses of national Presidents and national Prime Ministers. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which states that the spouses of heads of state and of government are normally considered notable. It is true that this is an outcomes paper only, but can be guidance. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with her husband and son having been president of Ghana, I am sure we can find better sources. However we need to find sources that say at least something substantial about her public role while her husband was president of Ghana.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Move to "Adeline Akufo-Addo". The name of the article is unnecessarily long, and no information regarding her full name can be found outside of Wikipedia. It's like naming the Barack Obama article, Barack Hussein Obama II. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because i want to play in the snow, i would have included a pikkie of a puppy/kittie/bunny in the snow but i bet a grinch of an editor would delete it:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 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. Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Goblet Brewing Company[edit]

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

Just a bare mention in the references. Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 2 refs, both trade press. Fails WP:NCORP Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC) beer, mmmmmm Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "but hang on, these guys make beer!", so, "and they've made beer inspired by Jason Kelce (here) and the Eagles! (here)", and? "plus they've won an award!", local, "and they are regularly in "Best of" lists, like here and here" just good PR:). Actually, i started this as a funny comment on a small non-notable brewery but these sources i found in under 10mins gsearch, i will leave it for more experienced ~~drinkers~~, oops, editors of this type of subject to assess whether this is indeed notable or not. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is hyper-local and / or WP:SPIP. Advertorial only; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough significant coverage to be considered notable, meets WP:NCORP. The controversy around the copyright litigation enhances it's nobatility. Emass100 (talk) 06:45, 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 speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #6 ... consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link [from the main page] before nominating for deletion. That the previous AfD was only a week ago is problematic; challenges to such a recent close should generally be directed to Wikipedia:Deletion review. (non-admin closure) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual lighting[edit]

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

Too trivial. (NO SPEEDY KEEP, PLEASE. ASK THAT THE HOOK BE REMOVED FROM DYK.) Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Appropriately-sourced and growing in its notability. Perhaps a merge with Bisexual pride flag would be a decent compromise, but that's not my preferred outcome. Bruzer Fox 02:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was just closed a week ago and found keep. Why is it being nominated again? matt91486 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. You can't renominate an article whose deletion request failed SIX DAYS AGO. If that were permitted, people would re-litigate every Wikipedia decision constantly. Wikipedia policy states: "Users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." I don't care about this article, but I care about the integrity of the process -- and the vote was almost unanimous for Keep in the previous discussion. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. per Lawrence King. I should also ask you Lojbanist, where do you propose to migrate this content to if the page does get deleted? This is some valuable information that has been properly cited, too. It’s be a shame to just delete it off the face of the encyclopedia. As far as many users are aware here, you’ve failed to make a substantial argument for the deletion of this article other than “I don’t think it’s good”. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:31, 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.