Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 October	15 October >

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. Tone 20:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Martin (lifestyle expert)[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on a nn individual. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Bkleinberg currently indef-blocked for abusing multiple accounts; likely UPE based on behavioural evidence. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:3

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article made up of trivia. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional trivia. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:34, 21 October 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. Tone 20:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Him Too movement[edit]

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

Hashtag which lasted less than 24 hours. All coverage is from Oct 9 and Oct 10, so WP:NOTNEWS. The hashtag didn't appear in multiple iterations because there's a conspiracy to promote the hashtag in the contexts of Kaine, Obama, Kavanaugh etc., but because it's a very simple English phrase. I would like to see an article about pro- and anti-Kavanaugh rallies, though. Sidenote: this hashtag is innately flawed as it assumes that men talk to someone about being falsely accused. wumbolo ^^^ 21:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't believe WP:BEFORE was consulted by the nominator. I've added a section on this hasthag/movement at Me Too movement##HimToo and posted a note to Talk:Me_Too_movement#HimToo. A simple merge proposal or discussion could have staved off an AfD, at least temporarily. The assertions "lasted less than 24 hours" and "All coverage is from Oct 9 and Oct 10" are fake news. A Google news search set to look before October 2018 finds many articles, some listed below. Remember that Wikipedia is not reality, and the current condition of any article or references therein is not grounds for deletion. While this hashtag has had multiple iterations over the years, as discussed in at least three reliable sources, it could very plausibly be merged and discussed in Me Too movement, similar to how Alt-left redirects to Alt-right, despite being essentially opposite. Similarly, if the level of coverage becomes significant, it might warrant a stand-alone article, similar to AllLivesMatter as a counter to BlackLivesMatter. While this new article is imperfect and the scope unclear (the hashtag has received more coverage than any "movement"), I think judicious editing and merging are better alternatives to deletion.

Note that the first three references below directly discuss the hashtag HimToo, while other sources (listed here and not) use it in headlines or in passing without expounding on the hashtag itself. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis, Emma Grey (September 27, 2018). "How #HimToo Became the Tagline of the Men's Rights Movement". WIRED.
North, Anna (October 10, 2018). "#HimToo, the online movement spreading myths about false rape allegations, explained". Vox.
Morris, Amanda (October 11, 2018). "#HimToo: Left And Right Embrace Opposing Takes On Same Hashtag". NPR.org.
"#HimToo name-calling for abuse splits academia". The Times of India. October 26, 2017.
Borpujari, Priyanka (November 6, 2017). "#MeToo and #HimToo Come to India". The Diplomat.
"Katy Perry's flirting on 'American Idol', PG-rated jest or #HimToo". Washington Post. March 20, 2018.
O'Connell, Jennifer (August 25, 2018). "#HimToo: What happens if the aggressor is a woman?". The Irish Times.

Keep Passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Good refs.BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 19 October 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. Tone 20:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ousmane Sidibé (footballer, born 1990)[edit]

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

Fails WP:Footy, no professional caps in football and thus ineligible for page Ortizesp (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion, as far as I can see fails WP:NFOOTBALL aswell. Govvy (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Never played a professional game and no sign of extraordinary circumstances to pass WP:GNG. Amazed this has been live for six years. Additionally, though we shouldn't comment on content but notability, this is also clearly written in pidgin or machine-translated Spanish. Harambe Walks (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Also, a comment – if this page is deleted, Ousmane Sidibé (footballer, born 1985) will need to be renamed, as that footballer will then be the only Ousmane Sidibé at Wikipedia. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:07, 17 October 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. Tone 20:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of tragedy television programs[edit]

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

Non encyclopaedic. Just a random list of sad stuff some person saw on tv.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although this page has a number of references there is not much collaboration between each list entry and any sort of criteria that fits in with it being a 'tragedy'. In this case WP:NOR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate and/or OR. Tragedy obviously has been a recognized genre in theater for thousands of years, but I'm skeptical that it is ever applied to television in the same way... I think it's significant that a good portion of this list is TV adaptations of theatrical tragedies. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. Too general a criterion to be of any real utility. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 16 October 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August Albo[edit]

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

I can't find SIGCOV to establish notability. The only serious mentions seem to be copyright entries in GBooks, and the single source in the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ There is a dearth of sources per Joe L. Rosson, the antiques columnist for the Knoxville News-Sentinel [1], and they're not exactly reliable. I can't quite believe that we can't find any, bu I've had no luck. Pity. Vexations (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC) There is a source in the Estonian article that I overlooked that might be useful; the April 1961 isssue of Kunst. http://www.digar.ee/arhiiv/ru/download/187474 I rely on Google translate to read it, but it is quite extensive, and provides a critical assessment of Albo's early work. The source is not sure about his date of death. It gives (1893—1945?). Switching to Keep, even though I don't find the keep arguments in the previous discussion very convincing. --Vexations (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. (Hint: It would have been a good idea to have checked the Estonian Wikipedia and the previous AfD). James500 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The keep arguments in the last AfD were lousy. But yes, in future I will check the Estonian Wikipedia for any future AfD nominations. And for the keep voters, since you are voting keep on an article with one source, perhaps you could add some sources? This is an article that literally says that the subject's name is not known: "It is uncertain what his real name was, but he would often sign paintings as "Rod Palmer" or "A. Curtis" in addition to simply "Albo"." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 14 October 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. Tone 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Paws Pet Insurance & Foundation[edit]

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

This Pet insurance company doesn't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH; AON is not independent and the other refs are promotional. Currently an orphan article; I recently removed the section of List of United States insurance companies where it was listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing much doing on google or news. The nom has followed the given refs. Fails WP:N. Szzuk (talk) 20:42, 20 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Peri[edit]

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

Sources largely do not appear to be reliable, and almost all citations appear to be interviews with the subject about the Magic Mike series, none of them discuss Peri in depth. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Originally nominated for PROD, blocked by WP:SPA article creator who then provided more citations to Medium articles and other unreliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Watch the Throne. While there are concerns with misusing AfD for merger proposals, nobody actually proposes to keep this article on its merits, and the nomination contains a valid argument for deletion, i.e., lack of notability. Sandstein 20:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Joy (song)[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user 64.26.97.61 (talk). Rationale was: "Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Can be incorporated into the Watch the Throne album article." Mz7 (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another merge rationale in the nomination. Shouldn't be at AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Watch the Throne. The lawsuit is a significant addition to the album article, but the remainder would be undue weight. — Newslinger talk 09:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nomination rationale seems to be asking for a merge, not deletion, so I would suggest procedural keep so merger can be discussed in a proper forum. I have not checked the sources so I am neutral between keep and merge.Rlendog (talk) 21:52, 17 October 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 20:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aasan R. Rajendran[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist - does not meet WP:MANOTE. This was a contested Prod by the original author. Length of practice is not an indication of notability. PRehse (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't appear to meet any of the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. His art appears to be very small and not notable. There's also no supporting evidence for the claims of healing people. There is some coverage of him, but it's questionable whether it's enough to meet WP:GNG. The coverage appears to be in the feature (aka human interest) sections of local papers and in an interview on a source of unknown reliability. WP:RS says these types of story are to be considered less reliable than actual news stories. I will wait to vote to see if better sources get added. Papaursa (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : "Varmakkalai" is an dying ancient martial art which has been taught and its medical system were properly used to treat people by Aasan R. Rajendran. The organizations "The Hindu" and "The New Indian Express" are top news papers of India(2 articles were quoted in our wiki page), following to it "Dinamalar" is one of the top South India news media (Please consider translating those pages and SBS Australia's Interview from our native language Tamil to English). Request not to consider the article for deletion as Aasan R. Rajendran has dedicated his life to save this art which is yet to get the limelight in media due to its unpolished and raw look. This Wikipedia page would be a small resource for people to know about the truth about his service to this martial art/medical system. Please consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indaravind (talk • contribs)

Do you have any independent reliable sources that show it's a beneficial medical system? The papers you mentioned are large, but the articles on him appeared as human interest stories in local sections. It would be good if you could provide other sources. Papaursa (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for considering and asking about the details. Varmakkalai (a.k.a Varma Therapy) is famous for treating neuro disorders like Spine problems, Epilepsy and Movement disorders etc. Here are few articles which could explain its capability for your consideration.
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/policy-and-issues/Epilepsy-is-fairly-common-and-manageable/article16855584.ece
https://innovareacademics.in/journals/index.php/ajpcr/article/view/12783
http://www.atimes.com/article/varmakalai-deadly-art-thats-dying/
https://www.nhp.gov.in/special-therapies_mtl (Indian Govt. website for this art) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indaravind (talk • contribs) 04:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the veracity of his claims, he has sustained and significant coverage in the Indian English language press. He meets WP:GNG, which means his failure to meet WP:MANOTE is irrelevant. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG..

This piece is non-serious reporting and the page regularly features random interesting persons from the local belt.
City-supplements of major Indian dailies are notoriously famous for their promotional-spam.This piece reads:--It is such a unique, comprehensive martial art, which assimilates other martial art forms into it.........Rajendran's current `dream project' is to..........For more information or enrolment, contact Rajendran at 2382137.
Trivialest of trivial coverage.His name is featured as one holding a health-camp, in a list of numerous events, happening in the city.
This does not mention the subject in any form or manner.
Publication in a predatory journal doesn't indicate anything.
This does not cover the subject.
This does not cover the subject.∯WBG^converse 07:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the first two refs were the basis for my keep !vote - if you can point to some discussion of Indian dailies as reliable sources for asserting notability I'd be open to changing my !vote, but I do prefer not to down-play the value of journalistic sources just because they came from outside Europe and North America so I would want to see some sort of evidence that there's consensus on this view.Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issues related to the broader types of our second source have been dicussed quite a lot, over ITNB. And, irrespective of which country they originate from, that's the very definition of non-intellectually-independent reporting, with a side-aim of promotion. The style of narrative is self-evident.
As to the first one, I used to read that paper regularly (am from India) and the statement comes from my experience.So, you can choose to disagree:-)But, as Papaursa sez above, it's precisely human interest stories in local sections. ∯WBG^converse 05:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for taking time to check the links and reply/vote.

Please check the short description with an audio interview by SBS, Australia - https://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/tamil/en/audiotrack/varma-kalaimartial-art-healing-touch?language=en
Article mentioning Aasan R Rajendran in Medium.com - https://medium.com/@Bollywoodirect/22-years-of-hindustani-indian-23-08-1996-fbcdf4c02539

The other articles mentioned earlier were to justify Varmakkalai art as a reply for Papaursa. This will not have any mention about our subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indaravind (talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SBS radio and it's associates often indulged in paid-for-information campaigns for random entities. I see that the current version of the site has either deleted the self-declaration or shifted it to a lesser-accesible place. At any case, esp. in conjunction with the general apathy of wiki-community against treating interviews as reliable indicators of notability, thr SBS source does not lend any to notability.
Medium.com is an unreliable source being a self-publishing platform and even then, the source allots a trivial mention to the subject in the castlist of a film, as a choreographer.
Please declare your conflict of interest and as to whether this account is being used by any individual or is shared. ∯WBG^converse 05:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks to the contributions of Indaravind, I think there's enough sourcing to indicate the martial art meets WP:GNG. However, I believe that Rajendran lacks the significant independent coverage from reliable sources required to meet that standard. He's not mentioned in the articles that are focused on the art and merely practicing a martial art for a long time is not grounds for notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This account is not shared and used only by me. Thanks for your continuous patronage to review articles. As said earlier, this martial is dying and does not have social media limelight yet. So, there are the only references we have so far. Please let me know if I can remove the links which are recently added to maintain its state as before (Oct 3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indaravind (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My well-known gripes about WP:MANOTE and WP:MMANOT notwithstanding, I'll defer to WBG's judgment here as they have a better grasp of the local media landscape. I tend to err inclusionist WRT BLPs, and I still probably lean slightly toward keep but not enough to want to try and argue to keep it if the general sense from others is that it should be deleted. TL;DR - I'm not sure whether my keep !vote would be more policy derived or based on my particular policy complaints and am stepping out of this one. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Definitely fails WP:MANOTE. The GNG is a closer call, but I don't think the sources are quite good enough. Thanks to WBG for his efforts.Sandals1 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 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. Tone 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qalat (Baloch tribe)[edit]

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

I think this was a mistake made in the move here in 2009. The information moved relates to the Khan of Kalat but nowhere does it refer to the tribe as Qalat (or any other spelling). I can find sources about the Khan and the place but nothing other than mirrors regarding a tribe that uses the name. The names of tribes and places in the region do sometimes coincide but this doesn't appear to be one of those occasions. Sitush (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Qalat is a place not a tribe.Mccapra (talk) 04:00, 21 October 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 GOOD Fridays. Tone 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Lord Lord[edit]

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

Completing AfD nomination for an IP. Their rationale was "Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GOOD Fridays. Not notable enough on its own, but the target list already has an entry for this song. — Newslinger talk 09:32, 17 October 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 Friday Night Lights (mixtape). Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Trouble (song)[edit]

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Their rationale was "Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Can be incorporated into the Friday Night Lights mixtape article." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Friday Night Lights (mixtape), which already describes this track in detail. — Newslinger talk 09:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC
Comment - nomination rationale seems to be looking for a merge, not deletion, so I would suggest a procedural keep so the merger can be discussed in a proper forum. I have not checked the sources and so am neutral. Rlendog (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Friday Night Lights (mixtape). Fails WP:NSONG. Whether to merge and what to merge can be discussed at the mixtape article. wumbolo ^^^ 07:42, 23 October 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. Michig (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Howley[edit]

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

This article has numerous spectacularly unreliable sources (e.g. Daily Caller, Washington Free Beacon), a few merely unreliable (Talking Point Memo, anyone?) and a couple of WP:RS that are mere namechecks. This has not improved at all since the previous no-consensus close, indicating that there is no sustained coverage. A number of truly shitty sources have been added to the "further reading" section though. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Subject passes WP:BASIC, and has received ongoing coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Gray, Rosie (January 13, 2017). "These Breitbart Alumni Are Launching a 'Populist-Nationalist' Group". The Atlantic.
Grubb, Tammy; Schultz, Mark (September 4, 2018). "Right-wing news editor accuses UNC lecturer of assault at Silent Sam protest". The Herald Sun.
"How not to occupy the street – Patrick Howley versus story-truth". Washington Post.
"Washington protest: American Spectator condemned over article". The Guardian.
"The 'agent provocateur' who infiltrated Occupy Wall Street". The Week.
"Conservative Writer Patrick Howley Claimed He Infiltrated Protest Group at Air and Space". NBC4 Washington.
"Street Harassers Think Every Time Is the First Time". The Atlantic.
"Reporter Won't Pay Taxes Until IRS Truth Comes Out". The American Spectator.
Manuel-Logan, Ruth (August 21, 2013). "WTH? Conservative Reporter Calls Out Obama As Being Biased Against White Dogs". News One.
Griswold, Alex (March 10, 2016). "Breitbart Suspends Reporter Who Implied Co-Worker Lied About Being Attacked By Trump Staffer". Mediaite.

Keep. As pointed out by Northamerica, Patrick has recieved significant independent coverage in the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian, and The Herald Sun. Passes WP:GNG.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We need a special notability guideline for journalists, since other publications don't write about their competitors and their own publications are "self-sourced" by our notability rules. It's a catch 22 making journalists the toughest of all biographies to properly source. My inclination is to keep here, with a pinch of our policy of IAR. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "spectacularly bad" nomination of notable journalist, I say this because of Nom's WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT attitude towards right-of-center publications that - whether or not one supports their politics - certainly can and veritably do launch and support the careers of notable journalists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I dislike all crappy sources. Example: HuffPo promotes quackery all the time. It is largely coincidental that the current tribal climate has led right-leaning sources to place ideology above fact, resulting in widespread promotion of counterfactuals like climate change denialism or bogus claims of "oppression" of Christians. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs with this little policy-based justification and this little evidence of WP:BEFORE are a waste of editorial time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The College Dropout. czar 19:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

School Spirit (song)[edit]

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

Completing nomination for an IP. Their rationale was "Mostly comprised of gratuitous quotes and infoboxes/sections designated for its skits. Contains unreliable source(s), does not meet WP:NSONG, did not chart. Content can incorporated into The College Dropout article, where the song is barely mentioned." I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The College Dropout. The cited reviews only mention the song in the context of the album. The "Censorship" section would be a good addition to the article for The College Dropout. — Newslinger talk 05:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nomination rationale seems to be asking for a merge, not deletion, so I would suggest procedural keep so merger can be discussed in a proper forum. I have not checked the sources so I am neutral between keep and merge. Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The College Dropout (2004), since there is some content of interest but nothing to indicate notability independant of album.TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Virginia State Route 600. czar 19:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia State Route 600 (Lee and Scott Counties)[edit]

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

May be a non-notable secondary road. Phil roc (c) 13:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Virginia State Route 600. From State highways in Virginia: Virginia has 48,305 miles (77,739 km) of secondary routes. These roads, numbered 600 and up, receive less funding than primary routes. Numbers are only unique within each county, and routes that cross county lines generally, but not always, keep their numbers. The non-policy WP:HIGHWAYS suggests that for the most part, county highways should be in a list article and the sourcing (entirely to Virginia government sources) suggests that should be done here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with the stipulation that the article content be included in the Virginia State Route 600 article, most importantly that the Lee and Scott SR 600s connect at the county line. V C 02:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as proposed by Power~enwiki. Mackensen (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed above. Smartyllama (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. –Davey2010^Talk 20:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:10, 18 October 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. It looks like the notability claims based on galleries in which his work supposedly appears have been rebutted. Sandstein 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Blazek[edit]

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

A search does not provide the SIGCOV needed for notability. Article sources are either not independent or trivial, or links to Amazon for books he has illustrated. The museum collections are of suspect quality, for example this Maritime Museum page lists his works with prices. GNG and WP:CREATIVE fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time keeping up with the deletion nominations of ThatMontrealIP. May I remind them that there is no deadline, that most of the artists' biographies are rather benign, and that slowing down a bit would be appreciated? To the issue at hand,Blazek appears to have received some critical attention. The Mystic Seaport is a notable museum. It's not remotely the kind of work I like, and Marine Art is a bit of a niche, but Blazek appears to have work in Museum Collections (the Delaware Art Museum) and has received some awards, although I'm not sure just how notable those are. Vexations (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I checked and I've nominated 31 articles for AfD since September 10. It's a quite a few, but I started to notice how many non-notable artist articles we have, some of which were egregiously promotional. Of the 31 nominated, 19 have been deleted, 11 are still open, and one was speedy keep. So these are by and large good nominations. Editing is entirely voluntary, so don't worry about keeping up! AFDs without adequate discussion get relisted. There is really no timeline to improving quality.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be coverage of the artist - [2][3] It is not the job of the nominator to assess the quality of his painting. Hzh (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I assess the quality of his painting? I questioned the quality of the museums, not the paintings.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said "museum collections", not the museum, and linked to his works. Seems to me you are talking about paintings. Hzh (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

like I said, I questioned the quality of the museums, not the paintings..ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite what is claimed in the article as an "internationally recognized" artist, I doubt he is more than a notable local artist. However, given the sources found and him being a notable artist in his genre, he might just about qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that his having art hanging at the Smithsonian is notable. Markvs88 (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However there is no source for that claim, and I have searched high and low. Feel free to provide one. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? The source is in the article. [4]. Markvs88 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the source means by "American Art Library of the Smithsonian Institution" exactly. Is it the American Art and Portrait Gallery Library [5]? If so, I'm not convinced that inclusion in a library collection is equivalent to inclusion in a museum collection when it comes to establishing the notability of the subject. Vexations (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Markvs88, a biography based on the artist's own promotional copy is not a proper source, it is a reprint of his own promotion claiming he is in the Smithsonian. If you can find a Smithsonian source, that would be good. I searched their site and could not find one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again ThatMontrealIP. I don't disagree with what you're saying, I cannot find any mention of his work at the Smithsonian either. OTOH not everything is on the Internet. For example, there is an artifact from Bridgeport, CT in the entrance hall of the American History Museum in DC. I've seen it dozens of times over the decades, and it's been there since at least 1986. Where did you see that it is his own copy on the Mystic Seaport site? Markvs88 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian claim is dubious, we need a source for that. The Mystic Seaport is a bio: organizations do not typically write biographies of artists-- they are almost always provided by the artist, unless the artist is dead. The Mystic seaport source is also very dubious because it is a 'museum' that is also trying to sell original works by the artist on the page mentioned. I've never seen a museum that advertised original works for sale like this: "Ocean View, Narragansett 20 x 56 $5,850." If it is selling works rather than collecting them, it's a commercial gallery with 'museum' in its name. Either way it is not an independent source as it has a financial interest in the promotion of the artist! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Mystic Seaport museum is a serious museum with an extensive collection of maritime art, [6], that does not have any work by Robert Blazek in its collection. It also has a store [7], that sells prints by maritime artists, which is fairly common for art museums. Additionally, there is an art gallery adjacent to the museum. Exhibitions there are not curated by the museum staff, and the gallery is not a collecting institution. Representation by that gallery does not establish notability for the subject.--Vexations (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for this insight, which clears things up considerably. I thought the price+museum thing was fishy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's arguments and Vexations.∯WBG^converse 13:46, 15 October 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 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HelloSign[edit]

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

Obvious COI article by a HelloJenna, consisting mostly of enticement over all the cool things the product can do. Meanwhile, I find scant mention of this product in independent reliable sources, so notability is not established. Even a CNN address led to content by HelloSign. Largoplazo (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. A news search led to a number of articles that appeared to be promising until I noticed that their author, Ben Kepes, is an IDG contributor instead of a staff writer. This TechCrunch article provides some coverage of the company, but only with respect to one of its products, and not the company itself. I found no other eligible sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. — Newslinger talk 05:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR pieces, and other sources which show that this product doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Also maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. JC7V-talk 23:01, 21 October 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. No consensus for deletion or alternatives and clearly more than just passing mentions. If anyone wants me to reverse the close (for some reason), bring it up on my talk page. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KaTeX[edit]

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

A software library. Fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage in reliable sources; the linked sources are blogs. Google News searches yield results about unrelated topics. Could possibly be merged into something related to LaTeX (edit: or to Khan Academy), but I know too little about that topic to suggest a merge destination. Sandstein 15:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the ICMS and SD Times sources that I added to the article after the nomination are sufficiently reliable, in-depth, and independent to pass WP:GNG. (The new TUGboat source is also reliable and independent but not very in-depth.) Also, nominator, did you place a notice of this discussion on the talk pages of your proposed merge targets? I believe this should be a required part of the process whenever a merge is suggested at an AfD, by the nominator or anyone else. To do otherwise risks having an impasse where the consensus at the AfD is to merge but the local consensus at the merge target is to keep the material out. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing is adequate to establish notability. XOR'easter (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per David Eppstein and XOR... above. I also note the google books link is showing for me isbn 1484214641 p215 and the entry is more than a passing statement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't counted that one because I thought it was self-published, but apparently Apress is a legitimate publisher. Ok, add one more source. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 16 October 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. Tone 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Bovey[edit]

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

Really don't see how this chap is notable outside of Anthea Turner. Laun chba ller 15:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article shows WP:GNG / WP:BASIC, please click on the links. See the references - Telegraph, Standard etc., coverage in multiple, independent, national publications, but wouldn't meet other guidelines. These were covering his time as a contestant on Celebrity Big Brother, his public marriage issues and his charity work, as well as a lot of media coverage of his financial issues. None of this was the case when this went to AfD nine years ago, the Celebrity Big Brother stint got him a lot of extra coverage. I also don't see any rationale for why, if Launchballer doubts he meets the linked guidelines, this is proposed for deletion, rather than a merge to Anthea Turner#Personal life or Celebrity Big Brother 18 (UK)#Grant Bovey, which is C4 of WP:BEFORE. Should definitely not be at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's known for his marriage, a property scandal and TV work. There is also coverage in the national press. Szzuk (talk) 20:37, 20 October 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. Tone 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sivu[edit]

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

fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. Not had a charted release. very minimal in-depth coverage in independent, reliable publications. created by a COI editor Rayman60 (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable coverage. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:01, 14 October 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. Tone 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Young (footballer, born 1975)[edit]

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

Footballer who has never played or managed in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTY. Was kept on a WP:GNG basis last time, but I don't see anything coverage-wise that's out of the ordinary for someone managing towards the top end of the semi-pro leagues; I could create an equally well-referenced article on the manager of the club I support in the eighth tier, but realistically a line has to be drawn somewhere. Number 5 7 12:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless I am missing something his career does not meet notability standards. Dunarc (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Chester and Stockport were teams in the professional leagues, but aren't any more, so their players and managers in non-league don't get a free ticket. No sign of extraordinary achievement to pass WP:GNG. Harambe Walks (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well put-together page, but nearly all of the sourcing is WP:ROUTINE game and transfer coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

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

The host yet been announced yet the article was created with no source. Aleen f1 12:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. And per Lugnuts. ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Ajf773 (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this could be sourced and kept, but I couldn't find anything. Fails WP:V. SportingFlyer talk 02:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says a host has already been announced. If this is the case, it should be kept. If, as nom says, this is not the case, it should be CSD'ed as a hoax. Smartyllama (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously a crystal. funplussmart (talk) 13:14, 16 October 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. Tone 20:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Campos-Hull[edit]

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

Driver who haven't raced in any professional racing series, and haven't any significant achievements, fails any WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable race driver.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage fails to meet WP:GNG and I see nothing that demonstrates he's a notable race car driver. Papaursa (talk) 18:01, 20 October 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jilletta Jarvis[edit]

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

Unelected candidate, fails WP:NPOL. Article was created in campaign preceding upcoming election, WP:PROMO applies. Cabayi (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections per se — if she does not have a credible claim to preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway, then a candidate normally has to win the election, not just run in it, before the election turns into an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself. But there's no strong claim of preexisting notability here, and not nearly enough reliable source coverage about her to deem her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Merely being a candidate for office does not, except in really exceptional circumstance, meet WP:NPOL. People should know by now that articles on candidates should be created in the user space or draft space and moved to the main space if and when they get elected to office. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are almost never notable, she clearly does not count as an exception to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another American campaign season promotional candidate bio for an individual who fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This actually does appear to be a campaign brochure. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article for non-notable political candidate. PamD 08:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer talk 01:43, 18 October 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 for deletion is clear. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin O'Donnell[edit]

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

Unelected candidate, fails WP:NPOL. Article was created in campaign preceding upcoming election, WP:PROMO applies. Cabayi (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won — but there's no other basis for notability here. Notability as a writer doesn't wash, because his book is metareferenced to itself rather than being sourced to the reliable source media coverage about it that would be necessary to deem him notable per WP:AUTHOR — and he can't credibly claim to be a special case whose candidacy is markedly more notable than most other people's candidacies, as the referencing here consists overwhelmingly of primary sources that do nothing to support notability at all and/or glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of other things, not the reliable source media coverage about him that it takes to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim of notability. Merely being a candidate for office does not, except in really exceptional circumstance, meet WP:NPOL. People should know by now that articles on candidates should be created in the user space or draft space and moved to the main space if and when they get elected to office. Wikipedia is not an election forum. (WP:PROMO) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor party committee members are not inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional American campaign season bio for an individual with no claim to encyclopedic notability. AusLondonder (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy political notability as a minor candidate, or general notability. Was not accepted from draft space, and does not need to be put directly into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer talk 01:42, 18 October 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. Tone 20:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AeroDesign Team of USC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG . A search on Google did not turn up anything reliable other than Facebook and YouTube videos . Kpg jhp jm 08:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 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. Tone 20:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aika Robredo[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, no notability outside of being a daughter of the Vice President. Any existing content could be merged with her mother's article. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course for the record I also think we should delete the article on Tiffany Trump.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I disagree with John on deleting Tiffany Trump's article. funplussmart (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Passing (gender). czar 20:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Methods of passing as male[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO Wikipedia is not a how to manual Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Preserve, any relevant, non-redundant and source-able material can be merged into the Passing (gender) article and reliably sourced there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Passing (gender). The title of the article makes this page read as a guidebook, but the content is pertinent to the target article, and I don't think there needs to be separate articles for male and female methods. — Newslinger talk 09:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Newslinger. Lowercaserho (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Passing (gender). czar 20:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Methods of passing as female[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO Wikipedia is not a howto manual Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Per WP:Preserve, any relevant, non-redundant and source-able material can be merged into the Passing (gender) article and reliably sourced there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Passing (gender). The title of the article makes this page read as a guidebook, but the content is pertinent to the target article, and I don't think there needs to be separate articles for male and female methods. — Newslinger talk 09:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Newslinger. Lowercaserho (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I would prefer a separate article, I only request that all of the pertinent information be included on the merge target, if that is the outcome. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 13:25, 18 October 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. I've speedy deleted this as a CSD A1, and also probable A11. This user has a history of similar worthless article creations. SpinningSpark 17:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QAZE[edit]

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

Neither of these codes is my forte but it didn't look right so I asked a friend who's a python expert & well versed in Java to examine it, partly because I've never heard of QAZE and could find no references. He agreed that it's nothing significant, that the python code here is garbage/meaningless, and the Java code appears to be the same. However as this is not my area of expertise I wanted to put it up for deletion review rather than speedying it. JamesG5 (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 14 October 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. Tone 20:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang H. Paul[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. This source in the article only provides a name check, which is not significant coverage, and the only other independent source in the article, which is unlinked, is from the 2007 Deseret News Church Almanac. However, multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are necessary, not just one. Various WP:BEFORE searches have only provided name checks and very fleeting passing mentions in usable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would help the subject meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)j[reply]
Delete Sources in article are not independent (Liahona, Church News), not reliable ("Grampa Bill"), or completely trivial mentions (Deseret News). The almanac source is not independent, as it is assembled by the staff of Church News, an official church publication ([8]). Search does not find significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, so subject does not pass WP:GNG. Worth noting that the article's notability claims are LDS-specific ("inaugurating full time missionary work in East Germany"), suggesting that subject likely did not attract non-LDS coverage. Willing to reconsider if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of New South Wales#Student organisations. czar 20:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arc @ UNSW Limited[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

COI article for a non-notable organization (a student union) that doesn't pass GNG either. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant student union at a major university. The article has existed for over a decade with many contributors, and has been unanimously kept twice. Drmies was also the nominator the last time it was unanimously kept, so this seems to be an attempt at "if at first you don't succeed...". The COI allegation is completely baseless and seems to be a bit of mud-throwing after the failure last time around. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:The Drover's Wife, thanks for the note--both, the one about the earlier nomination (I had forgotten) and the shot below the belt. I do wonder what gets you so upset so quickly. Anyway, like last time you have no actual argument except for "it's notable", and the article itself is still nothing more than a combination of a description of governance and structure, with a huge section of unverified factoids unworthy of an encyclopedia. Looking at the references, you have to go to #11 before the first secondary source, and the next one--well, who knows, since the references are kind of a mess. I could challenge The Drover's Wife to produce a reference from a secondary source that discusses the club in any kind of detail, but they couldn't be bothered last time either. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University_of_New_South_Wales#Student_organisations as per the guidelines in WP:CLUB. I am not in favour of keeping in as an independent article. A 10 year old organisation is not automatically notable, neither are student unions automatically notable. The scope of a student union's activities are largely restricted to the university and usually doesn't attract enough national attention. In this case, a merge to University_of_New_South_Wales#Student_organisations would be a suitable solution. I wouldn't like to merge all the information though as I am concerned that some of the information in this article is potentially violating our WP:BLP policy. Other parts of the article reads like an information brochure. We can exclude these information.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete/merge cover within the university itself, as its name says its Arc at University of New South Wales. The @ symbol in the title is itself problematic,there's policy/mos somewhere thats say we dont use such symbols, even if kept it would need to renamed. Gnan garra 10:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University_of_New_South_Wales#Student_organisations. I cannot find any sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG for this subject in its own right, but it does deserve due weight attention in the context of the UNSW. Aoziwe (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. Topic fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References mostly fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:19, 16 October 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. Michig (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Griffin[edit]

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

Someone added a citation to the IMDb to this unsourced biography, but I removed it. The IMDb is user-generated and thus should never be used in a BLP. When searching for better sources to use, I couldn't find any. I don't think this person is notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of mostly minor roles; doesn't look like she meets WP:NACTOR. Not seeing significant reliable-source coverage to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My take on the subject of deletion:

I find nothing wrong per se with this article, including the reference to IMDB, even if IMDB is user generated. Wikipedia is user generated! I read this article linked from Fast and Furious articles and I personally appreciated the article on Nikki Griffin for it contributed to my knowledge of this actor where I had none before. I vote that the article remain, and be left for others in the future to edit and add to.--Dhawo66 (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also searched for WP:RS and only found three potential sources. Elle April 2006 which mentions her in context to the person she is/was dating, but that's hardly significant. She is also mentioned as an example of an actor who plays a geologist ^[1]. And lastly, in Variety 2005 as attaining a role. Even if these sources were added I don't think the article would be substantial.Fred (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Women and geology : who are we, where have we come from, and where are we going?. Johnson, Beth A., 1978-. Boulder, Colorado, USA. ISBN 9780813712147. OCLC 1043983940.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

*Keep - Now sourced in the article are three references from Variety, a couple from Rotten Tomatoes, one each from the Hollywood Reporter, TV Guide and Extra TV, all of which are reliable sources and together meet notability guidelines. The subject has played a variety of documented roles in both TV and in films. Passes WP:GNG and WP:Actor. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC) AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- That's just a couple of trivial mentions, a database entry, and an image. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress with a bunch of minor roles that do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 15 October 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. No prejudice against a redirect to Endemol, but there would need to be sourcing in that article to justify the redirect. czar 19:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zeppotron[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced. Not an independent entity and not notable in its own right. Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Endemol in lieu of deletion; a quick search doesn't find sufficient refs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an unremarkable production company; fails WP:NCORP. I don't see a point in redirecting to Endemol since it's not mentioned in the suggested target, and would most likely be undue promotional detail there. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Endemol. Not seeing sourcing establishing notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, notability is not inherited and I am unable to locate and references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - there is no significant in-depth intellectually independent coverage of this company (regardless of its current name). Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. No idea why others are suggesting a redirect to Endemol either - it clearly isn't even notable enough to get more than its logo on the Endemol website. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 20 October 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 20:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Industrial Partners[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. While there are several mere-mentions, routine coverage, and press releases about the company, I was not able to find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth coverage; much of the information in the article comes from trivial mentions, and a search turns up more of the same. The nom sums it up well by calling this "routine coverage", which also leads me towards feeling the article fails the wider WP:NCORP criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Pender, Kathleen (1988-04-14). "S.F. Partnership Plots Manufacturing Takeovers". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  The former chief executives of Crown Zellerbach, Alumax, NL Industries and Thomson Consumer Electronics who all lost their jobs or resigned following takeovers - are now planning a series of acquisitions themselves.
  The four, together with two former big-league investment bankers, have formed a San Francisco partnership that will buy and run U.S. manufacturing companies.
  American Industrial Partners, which so far has been operating on its members' personal funds, in the next few weeks will begin raising $100 million to $250 million in equity from outside investors.
  ...
  The partners aim to buy mid-size manufacturing and industrial service and distribution companies at prices ranging from $50 million to $300 million. They're looking for private companies and divisions of public companies that have high market shares and special product, production and/or distribution niches, but that may be undercapitalized or have under-used assets.
  The article lists the six founding partners as:
  1. Richard Bingham, 51, head of mergers and acquisitions for Lehman Brothers
  2. William Creson, 58, former chairman, president and chief executive of Crown Zellerbach Co.
  3. Robert Marcus, 63, former president and chief executive of Alumax Inc.
  4. Theodore Rogers, 52, former chairman, president and chief executive of NL Industries
  5. Richard Miller, 47, outgoing president and chief executive of Thomson Consumer Electronics
  6. David Goodman, 51, former Morgan Stanley managing director
2. Johnson, Ian. (1993-06-13). "Sweetheart's new suitor AIP brings its back-to-basics approach to deal" (pages 1 and 2). The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  But back-to-basics dealmaking has helped American Industrial quietly assemble an impressive portfolio of manufacturers. The firm, which includes former CEOs of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Mead Corp. and Stanley Works, has spent about half of its $217 million buyout fund to acquire five companies with more than 4,000 employees and $500 million in revenues.
  Now, the partnership is poised to more than double its industrial assets by buying Sweetheart Holdings Inc., the corporate descendant of Maryland Cup Corp. Sweetheart, which generates an estimated $900 million in revenues, has 8,000 employees, including 2,500 at a factory in Owings Mills.
  ...
  American Industrial, a privately held limited partnership with offices in San Francisco and New York, does not release financial data. But interviews with company officials and industry observers confirm the view of a conservatively run group that seeks to revive companies by cutting debt and improving operations at companies such as Easco Aluminum Corp.
  ...
  American Industrial's money comes from 11 investors, including five former CEOs. The partnership was formed in 1988 and built a $217 million capital fund that runs until 1998, with two one-year extension options.
  Besides Mr. Rogers, partners include Richard Bingham, a former managing director and head of the merger and acquisition division at Lehman Brothers, a New York investment firm; Thomas Barrett, who headed Goodyear; Burnell Roberts, the former chief of Mead, a paper company; and Donald W. Davis, former head of Stanley, a tool maker.
3. Schladen, Marty (2009-07-23). "Fleetwood looks ahead - Decatur motor home maker in good hands with new owners, execs say". The Journal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  American Industrial Partners Capital Fund IV LP set a big task for itself in buying the Decatur operations of Fleetwood Enterprises Inc.
  ...
  New York-based AIP has been in business since 1989. A BusinessWeek profile describes it as a private-equity company that specializes in turning around "leading middle-market" industrial and manufacturing companies.
  In 2004, it bought Stolle Machinery, which makes equipment used in the manufacturing of aluminum cans. Alcoa sold Stolle at a time when its stock price was stagnating and it needed to raise cash, Randall said.
  Some private-equity groups buy companies, dismantle them and sell the pieces for a quick profit. But AIP instead bought Stolle's major competitor, Sequa Can Machinery Inc., consolidated the companies and grew the enterprise.
4. Johnson, Ian (1993-08-31). "Despite accord, Sweetheart debt service still a burden". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article discusses American Industrial Partners' acquisition of Sweetheart Holdings Inc. The article notes:
  The former Maryland Cup, which still employs 2,500 in Owings Mills and is one of the dominant cup makers in the country, was sold in May by Morgan Stanley Group Inc. to American Industrial Partners.
  AIP, a limited partnership headed by several former top executives, promised to cut the Chicago-based company's debt and infuse it with capital.
  ...
  Sweetheart, which generates an estimated $900 million in revenues and has 8,000 employees, more than doubles AIP's size.
  AIP, which is privately held and run by former CEOs of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Mead Corp. and Stanley Works, now owns six industrial companies with 12,000 employees and $1.4 billion in revenues.
  The company makes about 80 percent of its revenues producing disposable food cups, trays, plates and other items for fast-food restaurants and delicatessens.
  Sweetheart Holdings was spun off from Sweetheart Cup Company.
5. "Cup Maker Is Sold for $441 Million". The New York Times. Bloomberg News. 1993-06-25. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Sweetheart Holdings Inc. will be sold for about $441 million to an investment group that will also recapitalize the debt-laden company.
  The group, which includes several former corporate chief executives, agreed in May to purchase the Chicago-based maker of paper cups and plates and ice cream cones from the Morgan Stanley Group. ...
  ...
  American Industrial Partners, a private investment group that buys industrial and manufacturing companies, is raising $107 million of equity, and will own 66.3 percent of Sweetheart. ...
  The partners in American Industrial are Tom Barrett, former chairman, president and chief executive of the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company; Richard Bingham, former managing director and head of corporate finance and mergers and acquisitions at Lehman Brothers; Donald Davis, former chairman, president and chief executive of Stanley Works; Burnell Roberts, former chairman, president and chief executive of the Mead Corporation, and Theodore Rogers, former chairman, president, chief executive and chief operating officer of NL Industries.
6. Vardi, Nathan (2003-10-27). "Northern Exposure". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Private-equity firm American Industrial Partners achieved a similar miracle. It converted New York-based Great Lakes Carbon, the world's largest producer of calcined petroleum coke used to process aluminum, into a Canadian income trust, raising $133 million and receiving securities convertible into units worth $150 million, or 2.3 times what American Industrial bought Great Lakes Carbon for five years earlier in 1998.
7. Bohman, Jim (2004-01-13). "Stolle Has New Owner - American Industrial buys Sidney plant, others". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  American Industrial Partners executives say it differs from other financial investors "through the deep operating expertise of its partners and executive officer association.' This leadership team is made up of former top officers of Fortune 200 companies including Robert L. Purdum, a former CEO of Armco Steel Corp.; Tom H. Barrett, a former CEO of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.; Burnell R. Roberts, a former CEO of Mead Corp.; Theodore C. Rogers, a former CEO of NL Industries; W. Richard Bingham, a former head of mergers and acquisitions manager at Lehman Brothers, plus retired executives from Oshkosh Truck, Raychem, Tenneco Automotive, Union Pacific and U.S. Steel.
  ...
  With offices in San Francisco and New York, AIP invests in manufacturing and industrial service companies in North America. Typical equity investments range from $10 million to $50 million.
  AIP holdings include Bucyrus International Inc., Central Industrial Supply Inc., Consoltex Group Inc., Great Lakes Carbon Corp., MBA Polymers Inc., Sanluis Developments, L.L.C., Stanadyne Corp., Sweetheart Holdings Inc., Wabtec Corp. and Williams Controls.
8. Flanigan, James (1990-12-16). "Why the Trend to Deflation Is Encouraging". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Theodore C. Rogers, who heads American Industrial Partners, a $200-million investment fund with backing from the Bank of America and Wells Fargo pension funds, among others, is looking to invest in manufacturing and industrial distribution companies.
  The fund brings operating expertise as well as cash to investments; Rogers is a former chairman of NL Industries and a longtime manufacturing executive.
  ...
  Rogers expects shortly to invest almost $12 million in two box-making companies in Northern California--names undisclosed because the deal is not signed yet.
  The $12 million, which will represent 42% of the two firms' combined equity capital, will go for high-speed packaging and production lines and an ink plant to serve both companies. With the new machinery, American Partners hopes to increase profits from $1.3 million to $3 million within 18 months, and to earn their returns as the businesses grow from there.
9. Foster, Richard (1995-08-11). "New Rubatex Owner Knows Industry". The Roanoke Times. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Since 1990, Rubatex's parent company, RBX Holdings Inc., has been owned by New York-based AEA Investors, whose partners include Roger Smith, the former chief executive officer of General Motors Corp. AEA has taken a mostly hands-off approach to the firm and relied on hired managers for its knowledge of the rubber industry.
  The same probably won't be said about American Industrial Partners, which last week agreed to buy the company in a deal expected to be done in about two months.
  Formed in 1989 and based in San Francisco and New York, AIP counts among its many partners Thomas Barrett, a former chairman and chief executive officer of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. And AIP already is in the rubber business - it recently completed an $80 million buyout of Day International Inc., an Ohio-based rubber manufacturer.
10. Hagerty, James R. (2014-11-27). "American Industrial Partners Bets on Water Jets". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  But the New York-based private-equity firm American Industrial Partners is betting it can transform so-called water-jet technology into a bigger and faster-growing business. The firm spent $350 million over the past 16 months to buy two of the world’s largest water-jet firms, Flow International Corp. and KMT Waterjet, both U.S. based. It aims to promote one of the technology’s main advantages—it doesn’t create heat—amid growing use of composite materials, including plastics, that can melt when cut with lasers or torches.
  ...
  ... says David Savage, chief executive of Waterjet Holdings, which was set up by American Industrial as a holding company for the two firms it bought.
  ...
  Flow, the world’s biggest maker of water-jet equipment, had suffered in recent years from sluggish sales growth and was pressured by activist shareholders to improve returns. Five months after its board put the Kent, Wash.-based company on the block in April 2013, American Industrial emerged as the winning bidder, paying about $200 million, or $4.05 a share. Flow traded at more than $14 a share in mid-2006.
  Both Flow and KMT, which was acquired by American Industrial in 2013 for $148 million, suffered from a common ailment of companies run by engineers, says Mr. Marvin
11. Rosen, Daniel Edward (2012-05-24). "American Industrial Partners Goes "AIP" for 330 Madison Avenue". Commercial Observer. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Private equity firm American Industrial Partners will be moving from its current offices at 535 Fifth Avenue for its own tower floor at 330 Madison Avenue.
  The firm, which invests in North American industrial businesses, will be taking 9,848 square feet of space on the 28th floor of 330 Madison Avenue. The lease is for 10 years. Asking rent for the space was roughly $90 a square foot.
  ...
  Founded in 1989, AIP had been in a 4,829-square-foot space on the 32nd floor at 535 Madison Avenue as early as 1993, according to CoStar data. The company was rapidly growing, and was attracted to the 535 Madison Avenue’s proximity to Bryant Park and to nearly all major transportation lines, said a person close to the deal.
12. French, Howard (2004-06-24). "Stanadyne put on the block". Journal Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2018-10-14. Retrieved 2018-10-14.
  The article notes:
  
  American Industrial Partners is a private equity firm that invests in manufacturing and industrial service companies. American Industrial has owned Stanadyne since December 1997.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow American Industrial Partners to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once again, Cunard fails to understand "intellectually independent" reference. WP:ORGIND states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I am unable to find anything in those articles that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject while still meeting SIGCOV/CORPDEPTH. I am also unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. That said, there are a number of categories of companies that are not "sexy" and don't get written up and would probably be "notable" in their own spheres of expertise. Unfortunately, unless "exceptions" are discussed and agreed, these companies fall under NCORP. This topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: American Industrial Partners was profiled in the major newspapers San Francisco Chronicle and The Baltimore Sun and has received significant coverage in other newspapers. I do not consider those sources to be non-independent of the subject. For example, The Baltimore Sun article provides analysis of the subject ("But back-to-basics dealmaking has helped American Industrial quietly assemble an impressive portfolio of manufacturers"). And The Roanoake Times article provides analysis of the subject, noting, "AEA has taken a mostly hands-off approach to [Rubatex] and relied on hired managers for its knowledge of the rubber industry. The same probably won't be said about American Industrial Partners, which last week agreed to buy the company in a deal expected to be done in about two months."
  Cunard (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Being "profiled" and receiving "significant coverage" must also be accomplished in such a way that the that content includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject as per WP:ORGIND. Please note especially the phrase *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Given that both of those references rely extensively on interviews with the founders or with officers connected with their company, any statements plucked at random that aren't in quotes does 1) not mean that those statements are the opinion of the author 2) those statements weren't originally provided by the company officers and 3) those statements are significant for the purposes of establishing notability. From reading each article, it is clear that the statements you've provided are not clearly attributable to anyone but the context is important and since those statements are often following or are followed by statements attributable to a connected source, it is entirely reasonable that so too are your selected quotes. Certainly there is nothing to indicate anything to the contrary and most article are clear when information is arriving from a different source and most journalists are clear when they are voicing their own opinions. Also, your selected quotation from the Roanoake Times is in relation to AEA - an entirely different company. Everything written about AIP is attributed to Steve Schaefer of RBX - one of AIP's acquisitions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided fail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, being largely routine news or rewarmed press releases. I don't see much independent analysis, such as "But back-to-basics dealmaking has helped American Industrial quietly assemble an impressive portfolio of manufacturers". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:34, 21 October 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 20:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retort (production company)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to exist any more. Not obviously notable in its own right. Part of Fremantle Rathfelder (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:ORG / WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rathfelder it still exists, it just has a new name which is Hare and Tortoise. Wikipedical except there's a million links about Retort now renamed to Hare and Tortoise on Google, and are all easy to find. I can't understand why so many articles on Wikipedia like this get "nominated for deletion" when there's countless independent articles online. If the sources could only be found in books/magazines/newspapers offline then fair enough as someone would have to buy/borrow the said books/magazines/newspapers or go to a library to read them. But when sources can be found on page 1 of Google it's not that hard to find the sources and add them yourself is it, before nominating an article for deletion? I've added multiple articles from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Comedy.co.uk and Chortle among others to show it's notability. Danstarr69 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still part of Fremantle. Why is it notable in its own right? What is its legal status? I can see it as a registered company. Rathfelder (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder because like many TV networks and production companies in the UK and worldwide, they have many subsidiaries. The BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 4, Sky, UKTV etc all have different production companies they use for their shows, and sometimes produce shows for each other. Fremantle is no different. It has countless production companies around the world, 7 of which are in the UK. It's notable because it's produced many big shows for the biggest TV networks in the UK. Even if they were shows for the smaller networks it wouldn't make it any less notable. Here's Hare and Tortoise (formerly Retort's) registered company address https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06689783. Danstarr69 (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than multiple reworded press releases announcing the new company 'Hare and Tortoise,' I have not found any significant coverage about the company. The references you have inserted into the article are mentions of the company, which does not satisfy GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedical it doesn't matter if they haven't produced any shows yet as they're not a "new company." They're the "old company" renamed. It's just like how BBC One used to be called BBC 1, Channel 5 used to be called FIVE, All 4 used to be called 4oD, Sky Witness used to be called Sky Living etc Hare and Tortoise used to be called Retort and before that it was part of Talkback Thames before they split into 4 distinct companies. How hard is it for you Wikipedia experts to understand? If the other 3 companies Talkback, Thames and Boundless (which were all part of Talkback Thames before the split) are seen as "notable" then why exactly is "Hare and Tortoise" formerly known as "Retort" not seen as notable when it's done just as many shows as they have. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of series this company has produced does not establish notability, nor do mentions of the company in the reworded press releases announcing those series. It's not about quantity. What establishes notability is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as I said above. That's Wikipedia policy. See WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off, notability is not inherited and I am unable to locate and references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - there is no significant in-depth intellectually independent coverage of this company (regardless of its current name). Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:41, 20 October 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. Tone 20:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Sarjeant[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY and fails WP: GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he hasn't met notability guidelines, per nom.....PK T(alk) 15:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Being all-conference isn't enough to show notability and he appears to have had no pro career.

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

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

The result was merge to Mandarin (comics). Tone 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin's Avengers[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Is only linked by one article, which honestly should also be deleted. Team appears fourteen times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations, or Mandarin (comics). No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I am not sure about a merge, but a redirect to Mandarin (comics) might be a good idea. Govvy (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Govvy._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the proposed redirect does not mention this group, and this minor storyline isn't worth merging since the target is already tagged for being too in-universe. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Straightforward failure of WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. Per Agrento, no suitable re-direct. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 03:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Argento Surfer and Killer Moff. Aoba47 (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sentence or two into Mandarin (comics). That or redirecting would be preferable to deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Mandarin (comics), which will improve that article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be a rough consensus against keeping the article which is referenced solely to primary sources. Hopefully we can gain some clarity on what to do with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Mandarin (comics). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:17, 14 October 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 19:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaido (company)[edit]

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

Searching for sources, I am not finding anything demonstrating that WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH are met. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I hope I'm responding to this in the right place. If I'm not, please let me know the correct place to move this to.

I believe that Kaido does have significant notability. There are three reasons I think this.

1. The guidelines state that the subject should have received "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I believe that there are multiple examples of this coverage including:

http://www.midlandsbusinessnews.co.uk/kaido-wins-eit-health-award/ (An article by a local newspaper)
http://birmingham.livingmag.co.uk/kaido/ (A full company profile by a UK-wide magazine)
http://www.bqlive.co.uk/innovation/2016/05/12/news/kaido-secures-50-000-investment-to-launch-new-software-2408/ (An article on the company raising finance from a well known local news publication).

While I appreciate that this is on the lower-end of the scale of notability compared to many articles, I believe it does meet the threshold.

2. The coverage ranges in time over 3 years which fits with the guidance in WP:GNG that "notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time"

3. The company is growing strongly and has now over 150 companies, city councils and NHS Trusts using its software. While there are not yet citeable sources for this information, I believe that the page will grow in its references and its usefulness to the public over the coming months.

Thanks for taking the time to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihid (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My reading of the available sources (including those listed above) is that they are a mix of local coverage and routine announcements of funding and awards that are not intrinsically notable. While these demonstrate that this is a company going about its business, I don't see the coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, especially WP:CORPDEPTH. Of the three references mentioned by Ihid, the first is a non-notable award announcement excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH, the second is an anonymous writeup from a magazine with no list of editors, and the third is a capital transaction announcement excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH. The company can qualify for an article when there are enough high-quality sources in the future, but that's not the case right now. — Newslinger talk 09:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the analysis of sources above, they fail the criteria for establishing notability. I am unable to locate any sources that do, therefore topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 20 October 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. Sandstein 20:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Àdhamh_Ó_Broin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Àdhamh Ó Broin

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

An obvious delete ~~per WP:SNOW~~. There is nothing that even hints at notability, no mention in any notable sources, absolutely nothing. Yes, this individual is a genuinely nice person, he has won a little known award (I know it, but no RS-sources for the award either and winning it does not make one notable), and has done consulting for a TV-series. That is very far from WP notability. By the same standard, any person who has ever won any award or worked for any company or pretty much done anything should have an article. This is about as far from notability I've ever come across on Wikipedia (joke articles aside). I suggest a ~~speedy~~ delete ~~as per SNOW~~ Jeppiz (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, this isn't a SNOW deletion. I'm wondering if you checked Google News before nominating. There is some coverage of his role in Outlander[9][10][11][12] which is probably the only thing making him notable. I won't be voting either way because I think it's borderline in terms of GNG. It's fair to say that I created the article when I was new to Wikipedia and probably would not do so again. Catrìona (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree SNOW does not apply based on these sources (not mentioned in the article), but still hold it should not be on Wikipedia as I don't think it qualifies as significant coverage as it more or less comes down to one event (coaching actors in Outlander). I'm sure we agree he is not an academic, so would probably fall under 'creative professionals'. I cannot see how any of the four criteria under WP:CREATIVE are met here. Closest would be created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work but even that is rather far, as dialect coaching is hardly to create or play a major role in creating a tv-series. Jeppiz (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: (1) He seems an interesting person, much more so than dozens of models ("supermodels"), "reality TV" participants, etc. But that's merely my point of view. Jeppiz, you seem rather worked up about him. (2) Somebody nominates an article for deletion. If it soon thereafter becomes clear from the number and (near-) unanimity of others' comments that the article has no chance of survival (or deletion), then the AFD may be cut short. Very odd for a nominator to say, in effect, "Please discuss the fate of this article [AFD] by cutting short the discussion!" -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:ADHOM might be good idea, Hoary. Apart from being irrelevant to the discussion, the personal comments about me are entirely wrong. I'm not in the least worked about Àdhamh. Quite the contrary, he's a nice guy with whom I've spoken several times. I have a lot of respect for what he's doing, I support him, and I wish him well. It's just that being a nice person isn't a criteria for notability, not even being an interesting person. As I already pointed out, he does not meet our general criteria for being notable, and that is the one and only reason I recommended the article be deleted. Regardless of this discussion, I will continue to follow the work of Àdhamh myself, but that's quite beside the point. Jeppiz (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 14 October 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. Also noting that "Firemonger" does not currently appear in the main article. czar 19:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firemonger[edit]

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

Article about a defunct project to distribute Mozilla Firefox on CD. While it seems like a worthy task, the article is completely unreferenced and fails to establish notability.

The only independent reference I could find is a mention in a 2005 German book Firefox: Tipps, Tricks, Hacks (google books). That alone doesn't seem like enough. the wub "?!" 23:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A distribution project, no refs in the article, it is still available on sourceforge, last update 2013, this week zero downloads. Google showing nothing i can see. Szzuk (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" to Firefox: If it was indeed mentioned in an actual book it should have a least a one-line mention in the FF article. Modernponderer (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as I can tell the article talk page Talk:Firemonger was removed on 13 October 2018. I am not sure what happened but feel the AfD discussion should not be continued until that is present or an explanation provided as to what has happened. If there is a relist /reopen this should also really be mentioned on the log also as part of part has happened. At present I have not clue.. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC). Update: The talk page is now reinstantiated. There is a 2007 discussion (about merge?). I've added a Wikiproject Computing template as best practice.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (soft with refund available) ~~(Assume nothing relevant is on the mis-deleted talk page).~~ Yes appears in one book .. but well enough explained in that book ... and even despite it no signs of sustained impart. Don't believe a merge to the Firebox article is worthwhile as would cause more disruption than value.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC) ... standing by delete having reviewed talk page.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:59, 19 October 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. This secondary school deletion discussion has reached no more consensus than any of the others of this sort that I've closed. There is a fundamental disagreement regarding this particular topic which the community in general does not seem close to resolving. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latta High School[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable school. Was unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 23:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the community has long held that diploma granting schools that can be verified to exist are notable. The source to verify that is already on the article and there are several more available at the search tabs above. John from Idegon (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon, per WP:NHSCHOOL high schools still have to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. And you do realize that the argument "keep because we always keep these." is circular and called out in arguments to avoid here? {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 13:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy or guidelines do not decide content (with a very few mainly law based exceptions). Consensus does. Outcomes is a good indicator of community consensus. And this will be no different. Simply put, there will never be a time when a US (or Canadian or Australian or British) public diploma granting institution will be deleted. And it is because there is a plethora of public documentation filed on them that is easily accessible. Hence meeting GNG. A good analogy is how we treat broadcast radio stations. John from Idegon (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @John from Idegon: can you please point out some of these independent reliable sources with significant coverage because the nominator explicitly says that they weren't able to find them? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs work, but I also think we can benefit from having this reference of an official public diploma granting institution. Finnishela (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need sources showing more than just that the institution exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:GNG sources have been presented despite request. Delete per WP:NHSCHOOL. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per John from Idegon and long established practice. It exists and educates to Grades 9–12. Accoloot should be made aware of the inadequacies of the article and asked to improve it per WP:WPSCH/AG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kudpung.

Unrelatedly, it sure would be absurd and silly and stupid for Wikipedia to choose to shoot itself in the foot by making any policy or guideline or whatever outlawing secondary school articles, which are obviously good gateway topics for readers and would-be editors, besides being of social importance, and so on. Please tell me Wikipedia wouldn't do anything absurd and silly and stupid like that. --Doncram (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are sources via the state education department for the demographics and class sizes for the school. It does get frequent mentions in The Ada News local newspaper and NewsOK, allthough mostly for sports, but sometimes academics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or create a section/article for the district and redirect there.
Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
— WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES
Let's see those sources. Otherwise, there is no basis in references for keeping this article. czar 19:55, 20 October 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.

[1] Women and geology : who are we, where have we come from, and where are we going?. Johnson, Beth A., 1978-. Boulder, Colorado, USA. ISBN 9780813712147. OCLC 1043983940.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

[1]