Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 October	18 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. Sandstein 09:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Ford[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Redirect is only linked by two lists. Character only appears 10 times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if the subject was notable, the article is riddled with OR. That said, still a clear failure of GNG and NCOMICS. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean OR? The prose clearly says the pastiche is "obvious"! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An insignificant character in the fiction. The lack of incoming links means there's no point in merging information anywhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Killer Moff notes, failure of WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. 14 total appearances apparently, and no indication this is in anyway a significant character. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 25 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 Victoria Monét#Discography. There's a clear consensus that the subject is not notable for a stand-alone article, but that a redirect is reasonable, and no one's objected to this. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life After Love, Pt. 2[edit]

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

Article has two sources; one is an article by a Forbes contributor (who are not generally considered reliable sources) that does not mention the subject (or the performer). The other is genius,com, a crowdsourced website, that only gives a tracklist. Vexations (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Victoria_Monét#Discography. Fails GNG with the lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 03:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This has already been redirected once in Special:Diff/861862825/861863028 per WP:BLAR and was contested. Redirecting again to Victoria Monét#Discography as a categorized {{R from album}}, {{R to section}}, and {{R with possibilities}} is a good solution. Can in any case be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for recordings or the general notability guideline is met. Sam Sailor 06:08, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duraphen[edit]

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

Ineligibile for PROD due to de-PROD in 2008.

No indication this is a notable drug. I checked PubMed, GBooks, and GScholar. GBooks and GScholar had only trivial name-drops (and GScholar only three at that). Most of the GBooks hits are in books about living gluten-free, not even medical books. PubMed had zero hits. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is just brand spam. The class of combination drugs is covered under cold medicine. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have searched for a target we could redirect too, no luck. No evidence that it is notable for a stand-alone article. Sam Sailor 20:12, 24 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 06:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoiku Ara[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Fairly extensive search of bing and google failed to turn up an information on him. 2 of the 4 ref's are his own website. Prod was removed by SPA. Scribd has this: [1], and is supposedly detailed at pp.34-35. Can see anything mentioned on the page. Could be a letters page. Google books has very little except name drops.Architects work in the public domain, there should be more on him. scope_creep (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO created by same SPA in enwiki and jawiki. Bakazaka (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some passing references here and there on the web, but nothing close to surpassing WP:GNG. Architect, yes. Notable architect, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:47, 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 18:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Massacre (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Do we really need a two-item disambiuation page here? Qwirkle (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add hatnote to relevant articles. We don't need such a short dab. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the poor formatting with Boston Massacre linked up top in bold is misleading, it's actually a three-term disambiguation. -Inowen (nlfte) 21:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more it isn’t, nor should it ever have been. Can you give any proof that this term is widely used for the Marathon Bombing? Qwirkle (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: Just a heads up I added the Marathon Bombing one back. I google searched "Boston Massacre" 2013 and came up with more than a few articles calling it the Second Boston Massacre. I did !vote delete on this, and if it does get deleted, I recommend adding the Boston Bombing article to the hatnote at Boston Massacre, since it's possible people might try to find the Boston Bombing article by searching our site for Boston Massacre. Cheers, cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DABPRIMARY: The primary topic is the one reached by using the disambiguation page title without the (disambiguation) qualifier... Since it is unlikely that this primary topic is what readers are looking for if they have reached the disambiguation page, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended that the link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence. (emphasis added) Boston Massacre is the primary topic, and thus should not be in the list but be a bolded item at the top. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: It was poorly formatted, with the bold term also linked. @Cymru, your analysis about the proper form of disambiguation pages is not correct, as I have read it. The disambiguation page has to have the main meaning of the term, in the list with the other terms. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: my comment quotes directly from the page. Per WP:DABPRIMARY, if the primary topic is hosted at the name of the topic [minus the (disambiguation) qualifier], it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended that the link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence.. I don't know how more clear it can get than a direct quote. I will change it back to keep with guidelines. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cymru: PS: Whoever wrote that doesn't know what they are talking about, and is probably trying to destroy Wikipedia in some way. Look at any few disambiguation page and see if they omit the main topic; they really shouldn't. Also people don't arrive at pages just from the main topic page, there are several ways that people arrive at disambiguation pages. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: Nowhere did I suggest omitting the main topic... Nor did my edit ever remove the main topic. Point to me where I said that, or where the guideline page said that. These guidelines are agreed upon by the thousands of editors who have contributed to forming community consensus. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cymru: I honor that you were referencing someone else's writing, and that that writing which was of poor form did not come from you Cymru. You should not reference it, you should bring it up at the policy meetings and point out how it is flawed. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: How is a Wikipedia guideline that has been around for years that has the backing of community consensus reprehensible? Of note, it doesn't say to leave out the primary topic, as you seem to be convinced it does. And the place to raise an issue with a guideline or policy is on its talk page, not in an AfD. Also, FYI, referring to me as "Cymru" means you're calling me Wales. I am not a country. It's cymru.lass. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment at the guideline page. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Disambiguation_form. Please continue this discussion there. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Could be handled by hatnote as it was until recently, or by this dab page. Note that dab page is MOS-compliant as I type: leave it that way. PamD 10:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Removed the marathon entry per MOS:DABMENTION. Disambiguation of the baseball rivalry can be handled with a hatnote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, add information to the marathon bombing article covering the "Boston Massacre" use, and after that add the entry to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
. One primary topic + one baseball entry - one entry not called that = delete per WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and amend hatnote at primary topic. I agree with Clarityfiend and others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'm not sure that a hatnote is even necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 24 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 18:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Whitaker[edit]

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

Am I missing something here?! Notability is not inherited, and there's nothing here to suggest that the subject is independently notable. The subject certainly does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Additionally, it looks like the article has been effectively unsourced for at least 5 years... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR easily. Was not able to find reliable secondary sources coverage. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:05, 25 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. The "delete" side is more thorough and persuasive in the assessment of the quality of the sources used. Sandstein 18:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John U. Teh[edit]

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to fleeting passing mentions, name checks and a couple of quotations from the subject. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. Furthermore, several participants in the previous AfD discussion based notability upon those primary sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't find the link now, but in the last deletion discussion an article from the Manilla Buletin that talked about Teh was linked to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's this opinion column in Manila Bulletin that discusses some things he said about himself and about the church in a local forum, meaning that the 200 or so words specifically about him come from him: [2]. Bakazaka (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That Manila Bulletin article (here) provides some content, but multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish notability, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 14:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per The Manila Bulletin. Per WP:GNG. As late as 2012 this article was kept in a very clear AfD discussion for Keep.BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @BabbaQ: One source is not enough to qualify notability; multiple independent reliable sources are required, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The few sources that can be found are all primary ones. There is no independent, verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding significant coverage beyond the 200 words in a Manila Bulletin opinion column, which leaves only non-independent (Church News, Ensign) and not reliable ("Grampa Bill") sources, alongside a barely-rewritten PR blurb in the Meridian Magazine source (compare to Mormon Newsroom official PR: [3]) that is obviously not independent. None of those count toward notability. So the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Open to alternatives if significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources emerges, but even the article only makes claims about holding different jobs within the church, suggesting such coverage is unlikely. Bakazaka (talk) 03:09, 24 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 18:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Act 2 Cam[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Although multiple sources are cited in the article, they are not "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:ORGCRITE). A google search for "Act 2 Cam" provides only 281 results in total. Furthermore, the article has some serious WP:COI issues. The article was created and mostly edited by Obsteve (talk · contribs)(Redacted). 153.174.11.128 (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Complete AfD per WT:AFD request. I am neutral in this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article already has multiple references showing significant coverage in reliable sources, so passing WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have declared my conflict of interest in ACT 2 CAM and I am working hard to keep the content verifiable. The majority of edits over the last week have been to update information and remove dead links. Nobody else updated the out-of-date information so I felt I had to remove out of date material and update changes myself. If there is anything I can do to maintain the integrity of the article I will do so. I have referenced articles written about ACT 2 CAM in national newspapers such as The Stage, The Guardian and Sky News. Best wishes, Obsteve (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several articles were recently edited to remove mentions of Act 2 Cam; see Special:Contributions/153.230.176.151. Certes (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links to ACT 2 CAM were recently removed, citing spam, although references were given. I believe that the entries satisfied notability guidelines. For example, Regarding Evita ^[1] ^[2]. It was also covered on Regional UK television. Obsteve (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Hartlepool Fights Back Against Economist Slur".
^ "Don't cry for Hartlepool Marina".

Comment I've added some archive links etc., so we can better see what the sources are. I assessed all the existing references, and made a list on the article's talk page. At the moment, there isn't sufficient evidence of coverage to meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG/WP:ORGCRITE. There don't appear to be any references to significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, so additional citations would be required to establish notability. --IamNotU (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- local sources are permitted for schools articles and as there are multiple reliable sources then WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - ACT 2 CAM as a privately-owned, for-profit educational business is considered a Commercial organization, not a school, per WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ORGCRITE, including WP:AUD, applies. Local sources are also permitted for companies, but they must contain deep or significant coverage of the company itself (not just its productions or events) per WP:ORGDEPTH, which none of the existing sources has. Additionally, "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary", with significant coverage of the company, per WP:AUD. --IamNotU (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep The article is well sourced. Has enough coverage required for WP:GNG. Knightrises10 talk 13:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Response Unfortunately, "well sourced" and "enough coverage" is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. Can you provide 2 links to references that meet the criteria in WP:NCORP - if they meet the criteria for establishing notability, I'm happy to change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet BLOCKED Note that Knightirises10 has been blocked for sockpuppetery. There was a time that the !vote would be struck but I'm unsure if that is still the case. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a sockpuppet when he made this comment, he was later blocked for creating sockpuppets but this account is the original account Atlantic306 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck off sockpuppet's input per WP:DWS and standard AfD practice. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Α sockmaster not sockpuppet who was not blocked then Atlantic306 (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Paging Dennis Brown!

-The Gnome (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely promotional, reads like a brochure or website promoting the company. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Also I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. First off, notability isn't inherited and coverage of their productions doesn't translate to notability of this company. Mentions-in-passing in some articles fail to provide any depth of coverage on the company and these references fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Blogs are not regarded as reliable sources and fail WP:RS. Other references rely entirely on quotations from connected sources and fail WP:ORGIND. There does not appear to be any intellectually independent coverage. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Highking, is there not any independent analysis by school watchdogs Ofsted ? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - As already noted on the article's talk page, Ofsted is not a secondary source: "primary sources include: ...government audit or inspection reports" - so can't be used toward notability. The fact that the company voluntarily registered itself for a government background check for childcare providers says nothing about its notability. --IamNotU (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that Knightrises10 has since been blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is clearly not established by existing sources, as noted above and outlined on the talk page. It's been 14 days, and none have been forthcoming. I did a thorough web search and was not able to find any. In addition, the article was created and written almost exclusively by the head of the company, who meets the definition of a paid editor, and had not disclosed that at the time. Even if notability was to be established, now or in the future, the best course would be to WP:BLOWITUP and start from scratch, following proper COI procedure. --IamNotU (talk) 13:08, 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 redirect to St. Louis Southwestern Railway. Can be merged to either there or to Arkansas Railroad Museum if sources are added, but there's clearly consensus not to keep this unsourced stub as it is. Sandstein 18:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton Belt Rail Historical Society[edit]

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

No indication of WP:NOTE. No sources besides a link to the groups website. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about either the railroad it wants to preserve or the museum where its based. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge, no meaningful refs in the article but worth a mention elsewhere, not sure which of those offered above though. Szzuk (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quick reasons (admins are closing on these debates while I am writing), and then I will develop further: it has a broader coverage than mentioned here, and it is certainly notable. Den... (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it stands, User:Den... hasn't made any useful argument, but relisting to allow him the opportunity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To elaborate on my Keep !vote (thanks RoySmith for the chance—slow connections hinder much). It is hard to understand how this article ended up in AfD since the coverage is extensive and significant enough. The Smithsonian Institution has it featured in its Museum Day and that is because the Cotton Belt Rail Historical Society operates the popular Arkansas Railroad Museum (which is different than saying “it is housed at the Arkansas Railroad Museum”). But the society is more than just the museum as its society chapters shows. In fact, it begot the museum and the museum is mostly the public face of the society. The organization, which is a historical and thus a scholarly society, is extolled in scholarly publications for its support to researchers, its restauration projects (here too), its non-museum collections (here is on the same footing as the VHS). Even while these small and underfunded institutions shine mostly within scholarly circles and publications, the CBRHS has also gotten newspapers attention (e.g., see here, here and here), and have been doing it for a while already. What else should we ask of a historical society?Den... (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if improved while this AfD is still open, otherwise move to draft space. SpinningSpark 17:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my provisional keep. Despite the promises of improvement, there is no sign of any activity on this article. SpinningSpark 18:41, 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 no consensus. Trending towards keep. Most editors are of the view that we should be able to work out which regimes to include based on reliable sources listing a regime as totalitarian. Sandstein 11:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of totalitarian regimes[edit]

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

This page is a bit flawed for a couple of reasons. First of all, what can be classed as totalitarian is disputed and the article does not exactly define what makes these countries totalitarian. Some may seem obvious but a lack of a definition may confuse some who may not find it so obvious. Secondly, it's quite a trivial criteria and is essentially "List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States" all over again and according to WP:LISTDD, a list should not be based on something so trivial. Third is that this could be viewed as a POV fork which violates WP:NPOVVIEW and even on the article it states that some countries like Fascist Italy and the Empire of Japan being totalitarian is disputed. Finally, the factual accuracy of the article is disputed and there needs to be additional sources for verification. For those four reasons, I propose the deletion of this article. I am aware I already proposed the deletion of this earlier this year but the consensus was keep but things need to be improved and so far I have yet to see any improvements on this article. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 04:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been on my watchlist for 6 months or so and I've been observing the back and forth edits that support the nom's rationale. At root it's because there is no clear authority or understanding of what a totalitarian state is. One of the sources directly asserts this, saying "There is much confusion about what is meant by totalitarian in the literature" (#17 Rummel, R.J. (1994)). This confusion leads to endless churn and disagreement over what to include or not. It's not black and white only POVs. Given how the term 'totalitarian' is often used by political enemies to disparage former or current regimes, it's biased to find a single commentator who uses the term in a reliable source without some broader examination of the literature. If it must exist, it should be in prose form where editors have room to play out back and forth opinions and let the reader decide if it's totalitarian. -- GreenC 06:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it's controversial doesn't mean it should be deleted. Benjamin (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. If there are problems with the present article - take it to the article talk page (which seems rather sparse) - and if you don't reach a consensus - try a RfC. Totalitarian regimes are clearly discussed as a set, and meet WP:NLIST. Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List meets WP:LISTN, as totalitarian regimes are discussed extensively as a group or set by independent reliable sources. WP:LISTDD is an information page for prospective list creators, not a guideline or policy. Issues regarding the content of the article should be handled with editing and tagging, not deletion. — Newslinger talk</spanm> 13:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m against the deletion of the article, I agree it needs some expansion and work but right now it’s not like it’s inaccurate, and it’s really useful when someone is looking for a list of dictatorships and stuff, I find it really useful, especially for ideologies. The History Nerd5 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is and isn't "Totalitarian" is down to opinion. Too ambiguous to have a Wiki article. Perhaps only populate this list with governments that openly called themselves Totalitarian. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is and isn't totalitarian is down to what reliable sources say. That it might be called "opinion" is irrelevant. Benjamin (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is missing the point. Totalitarian is a matter of controversial opinion. This list is highly POV by favoring the sources that say yes, while completely ignoring sources that say otherwise. There's no room to discuss the pros and cons of why a regime might be called totalitarian, who is calling it totalitarian, and to give space to opposing POVs. The list is highly biased and will continue to be battleground. -- GreenC 18:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, just because it's controversial, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Work out disagreements on the talk page. If a regime is called totalitarian by most sources, then so it is. Benjamin (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no academic agreement on the meaning of totalitarian, I provided a source above, there is no way to just "work it out". Wikipedia was not designed this way, it was designed to allow for multiple POVs on controversial topics, not a single POV chosen on the talk page. A list is completely inappropriate for this topic. -- GreenC 18:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be a perfect agreement. If there's disagreement, decide if most sources go one way or another, and then mention the disagreement on the article for that particular country. Benjamin (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes it's even possible to decide if debates weigh towards one or another or somewhere in between. This is why we allow for inclusion of multiple POVs fully explained and expanded upon in prose format and let the reader decide. But that is not practical in a list article, where inclusion automatically labels it. -- GreenC 19:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there may be some edge cases, but I'd think usually the plurality of sources would go one way or another. Benjamin (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC

No actual totalitarian regime calls themselves “totalitarian” they don’t do that, why? Because they want to have a good international image and to be able to import and export stuff (in the case for less powerful totalitarian countries). I agree with the idea of adding totalitarian states to the list that are described by most sources as “totalitarian”, just because some Stalin loving communist weeb is throwing a fit about Stalinist Russia being on a list of “totalitarian regimes” doesn’t mean we should delete it, if we are going to delete this because it might offend other people then I suppose we need to delete every other dang article on Wikipedia that has the slightest bit of controversy or has offended someone. The History Nerd5 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Reliable neutral academic literature says "There is much confusion about what is meant by totalitarian in the literature", the controversy is real outside partisan questions. -- GreenC 23:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any really high quality source that would say that North Korea isn't totalitarian? That the USSR wasn't? Like I said, there might be some disagreement about edge cases, but there are also cases where there isn't. Benjamin (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but significantly reduce/change the list per sources. See here, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - responding in order to Nom's points. Regarding the first point, the failure to define would only have any reasonableness if we felt it was impossible for any definition for the majority of totalitarian countries to be satisfied (even if as simple as most reliable media refers to them as such). The second point regarding countries added under trivial criteria seems more of a clean-up point, the list itself doesn't seem unviable and trivial. Third, the presence of edge/potentially wrong cases doesn't indicate a POVFORK. It may be NPOV but it isn't unjustifiable. The factual accuracy of the majority of listed countries isn't really disputed. The need for clean-up remains, but a failure to progress doesn't change the underlying reasons for an article either warranting a Keep or Delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite, of course. I was already writing my reasons for delete; I agree with AlessandroTiandelli333 that we should have a clear definition of what totalitarianism is. I would add that it is a term often confused with authoritarianism, and there are some examples in the list which do not belong there. However, as Icewhiz explained, AfD is not and should not be a cleaning up project. An article like this one (perhaps paired with one on Authoritarian regimes) enriches Wikipedia. Den... (talk) 03:58, 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. Sandstein 18:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Badi' ud-Din Shah al-Rashidi[edit]

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

I fail to see how this subject passes the notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Was unable to find reliable secondary sources coverage, as all the sites I have found are just mentioning his biography. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upon looking through the history of the article, it's been an unsourced stub for about a decade and has never evolved beyond that. The user who created the page only has one edit, which hints towards it being promotional; I believe this should have been A7'd several years ago.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 11:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Madness. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:50, 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 delete. Sandstein 18:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Komar (caste)[edit]

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

Non notable subject that fails notability guidelines at WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the confusion and lack of secondary sources to corroborate the claim in this article. The author(s) did not realized that the term "Komar is short for Kanyā Kumāri." Moreover, "The place Kanyakumari has derived its name from the Sanskrit ‘kumari’ which means a virgin, one of the names of the goddess Durga, the presiding deity of the place. It is a variation of 'komar.'" See also, here. This topic should be ideal for historical research, in other words, for original research WP:OR, but not for Wikipedia. Den... (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be nonsense, right from its creation. I've never been able to find anything that even supports the existence of this community, let alone the claimed connection to the Domar (caste). I've also got no idea why 1913 should be a significant date: most modern-age "creations" of castes can be traced to designations in censuses, which would have meant 1911 or 1921 in India - see Census of India prior to independence for some background on this. - Sitush (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- That they are not Komarpants, most of the hits about social/caste groups named with Komar is pretty dis-countable. Among the ones that remain, I locate that a caste with the very same name from the state of Orissa had been enumerated in the list of backward classes by the Mandal Commission and another trivial mention in a ethnographic study of a district of Orissa.But, GNG is not met and by a mile.∯WBG^converse 05:54, 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. Talk page moved to Talk:Orthogonal group/Rotation group (disambiguation). Sandstein 18:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rotation group (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Special orthogonal group redirects to Orthogonal group; SO(3) is an example of a special orthogonal group and is mentioned in the lede — this disambiguation page is unnecessary. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Orthogonal group (the same target as Rotation group). This would allow to keep the talk page that is far to be empty. D.Lazard (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unneeded and utterly confusing if a conventional dab page was expected. Move the talkpage to a subpage of Talk:Orthogonal group if those conversations are important to preserve. SpinningSpark 22:05, 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 06:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D. Policy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and is clearly WP:TOOSOON as one of the puff pieces says he "hopes to see his music recognized and appreciated by winning awards in the very nearest future." Dom from Paris (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first two references are copies of an obvious PR release. The third is not valid. There is no independent in-depth coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and as pointed by nom it also fails WP:NMUSIC. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, PROD material that obviously fails BASIC/GNG as well as NMUSIC. Sam Sailor 16:07, 24 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 Hiroo Yamagata. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project Sugita Genpaku[edit]

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

A non-notable project that does not meet WP:GNG, per source searches. Could be redirected to Hiroo Yamagata. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah, I have to agree the project doesn't seem to be notable enough. -- Taku (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hiroo Yamagata. An interesting project that does not meet any of Wikipedia's notability policies or guidelines for inclusion. Redirecting to the project creator's article is a sensible alternative to deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 21:16, 11 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 14:37, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phillies Bridge Farm[edit]

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

Couple of hits in some local NY papers, but that's it. This does not pass our notability standards, and is all too promotional to boot. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO violation, WP:NCORP and WP:GNG not met. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 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 01:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:12, 10 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 14:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Series faiure of WP:NORG. Only coverage in news outlets is by advertisments, passing mentions and press releases, and is insufficient to qualify as either in-depth or persistent coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources as required. ——SerialNumber54129 11:56, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 21:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La-Chun Lindsay[edit]

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

Lindsay has done good work that has made the world a better place. Alas this is not our criteria for notability. Most coverage of her is really that of GE Aviation (or GE Aviation Wales), frequently of its diversity efforts which she has led. I could locate no significant coverage of her as a person. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No significant coverage??, but BBC, Cardiff Uni, Wales Online, Swansea University, have this mention and GE did not vote her as top 40 LGBT activists. Victuallers (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPLindsay has had great influence on south Wales, speaking at many events and really embracing local communities and educational establishments as noted by 3 honorary degrees from Welsh Universities. Not to mention being the first female leader of the largest manufacturing facility in Wales - please explain why this is not notable? Nejaby (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ~~KEEP~~ see comments against the original requirement for deletion on the talk page La-Chun Lindsay Nejaby (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at it objectively, she was Managing Director of a significant company (which is equivalent to the American SEO) And theh onorary degrees usually do indicate notability . DGG ( talk ) 13:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there does seem to be enough rs coverage for WP:BASIC, note that the subject does not have to be the main topic of the media article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The BBC called her a leading Welsh MD and she was selected by a Welsh newspaper as one of the most influential LGBT people in Wales. Three Welsh universities gave her honorary awards.[4][5][6] All easy to find within minutes. Knowing this and reflecting on our systemic biases, the decision to nominate this for deletion is deserving of a trouting. Fences&Windows 19:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Clearly I got this one wrong. It should be speedy kept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 15:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Owen (plantswoman)[edit]

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

Article about person seemingly lacking in notability. WP:BEFORE brings up one obit and mentions in specialty blogs. -The Gnome (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as this seems to be some sort of pointy reprisal for a disagreement elsewhere. And notice that the nominator has not even had the courtesy to notify the article's creator. As for the subject, she is clearly notable per WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. She was covered in detail in a recent TV show that I happened to watch and, when I followed up, I soon found a detailed account of her life. That's two respectable sources and it is easy to find more coverage such as this account of a plant that she discovered and named after her husband. You can see the woman herself in action here. There is now a snowdrop named in her honour, as reported here. Andrew D. (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the implication that I'm acting out of bad faith. Better focus on the AfD, Andrew D., and avoid personal attacks. In that discussion we had a disagreement of viewpoints, which should not be earth shaking news, especially in Wikipedia! In the discussion, this article was mentioned and I looked it up. And assessed it as an AfD candidate. Simple as that. There is absolutely no agenda behind the nomination. Simmer down, please, and allow the process to develop. And take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that other discussion, The Gnome attacked me without even mentioning the content in question. See WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "attack", was actually a warning not to take the path of advocacy as you stated you would. You believe women are under-represented in Wikipedia? Fine, take it up in the appropriate forums. Do not fight such a battle in AfDs and RfCs. It's not the place for such a struggle. And don't start articles on a whim. (To quote you, "I shall now go off and start another article about a woman"! Seriously? As if starting articles is a game or some kind of a political statement.) No one's "attacking" you. Suggesting strongly that you lay off the politicking in this space is good advice. -The Gnome (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added to the article and think the Veitch Memorial Medal means she meets WP:ANYBIO first point. Tacyarg (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Tacyarg & Andrew Davidson --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations are a clear indication of their notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: In 2010, she was awarded the honor of Most Excellent Order of the British Empire MBE, rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences. Netherzone (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the MBE is not considered to confer automatic notability. That would require a CBE or above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But that obit was in a major national newspaper and that is always held to be sufficient for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 24 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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 11:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Hansen (photographer)[edit]

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

Article was deleted because of missing relevance in the German Wikipedia. Here is the deletion log: : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/30._August_2018#Siegfried_Hansen_(gel%C3%B6scht) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.87.121 (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Cleanuped this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close the article has problems (three sources into the ref list I found a Blogspot source), but there is somewhat reasonable independent coverage available here, here, here and here. The nomination does not give a reason for deletion (Deletions on other-language wikis are not reasons here), so this is perhaps also a procedural close. One might ask why there is a sudden need to delete the article in two different wikis. The German deletion was two weeks ago. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid argument clearly supplied for deletion. One argument can, however, be inferred: "Over on de:WP, Hansen was judged not to merit an encyclopedia entry (and not merely an entry in German), QED." I've read Google's English quasi-translation of the discussion, and it's not so garbled that I can't get the gist of it. I'm not convinced. A lot of it is along the lines of: "He's less notable than are various [unspecified] photographers whose articles have been deleted." Even if this were true, it would be invalid here: see WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Well, is he notable? There are chapters devoted to him in books from publishers of some merit; therefore yes he is notable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid argument supplied for deletion and subject satisfies notability: a member of In-Public; 2 monographs; group exhibitions in notable venues (Deichtorhallen, Museum of Warsaw and Museo di Roma in Trastevere) and on various continents; solo exhibitions (at venues unknown to me or to Wikipedia); and inclusion in a number of survey publications on street photography including Street Photography Now. Coverage in WP:RS is not overwhelming but is ample: Die Zeit, Aesthetica, and HuffPost. The German Wikipedia deletion process appears to be a discussion rather than a vote. The discussion reads via translation to be full of sarcasm, as though something has wound people up the wrong way, presumably the subject's having edited the article themselves (under their own name). I cannot get behind reasoning such as this used in that discussion: "As a photo artist you should have a solo exhibition about every 18-24 months, at least a handful distributed to the country or Europe." (translation). -Lopifalko (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The exhibition in the Deichtorhallen was not a relevant group exhibition but a mass exhibition with more than 50 photographers. The exhibitions in Cardiff, Berlin, London, Warsaw are not relevant exhibitions, but lobby and marketing exhibitions of the group Streetphotography now on the respective book publications. Hansen has also no solo exhibition in a relevant museum or in a non-private gallery. The groups in which Hansen is represented are not really relevant groups in the sense of art, but rather communities of interest. There is no explicit review of Hansen's work by an expert. The mentions in the magazines are more like his own work shows than expertises on his works. Both the German and the English Wikipedia entry were largely written by the artist himself. A lot of quantity, little quality. Lots of filler, little really relevant! German Wikipedia has consequently deleted the article, because even in Germany they do not see Hansen as an encyclopaedically relevant artist. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we should finally be aware of that and increase the quality and the standard and not make a phonebook out of it. --93.131.28.133 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The contributions of the AfD nominator, 77.182.87.121 (total so far: 3, all related to Siegfried Hansen (photographer)); the contributions of 93.131.28.133 (author of the comment immediately above) (total so far: 1, the comment immediately above): WHOIS shows that both IP numbers belong to Telefonica Deutschland GmbH -- whose IP numbers were also active in the de:WP discussion. Are we having a discussion with one anonymous person here, or does Hansen just happen to be of extraordinary interest to anonymous customers of Telefonica Deutschland GmbH? -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Likely, but I might note that Telephonica Deutschland made "7.3 Billion euros" in 2017 (operating from this tiny headquarters), so they for sure have a few million customers.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the paragraph above by the Telefonica Deutschland GmbH customer (TDC): Yes, Hansen's article started out as written by Hansen. Here it is in the final form in which Hansen wrote it (with very minor changes by others). Note three points about this. First, however wrong it was for Hansen to have written it, it's not the cringeworthy, self-congratulatory tosh that's normally disgorged by autobiographers, but instead pretty sober. Secondly, it has been extensively reworked since (primarily by Lopifalko). Thirdly, while strongly discouraged, autobiography is not one of the reasons for deletion. ¶ TDC's understanding of the word relevant and my own appear to be different. Or maybe the problem is that they're saying that this or that is "not relevant" without saying what it's not relevant to. Anyway, any exhibition by Hansen, no matter how trivial, is relevant to Hansen. This of course doesn't mean that it's necessarily worth mentioning in an article about Hansen. If Hansen's work appears in an exhibition of work by fifty or more photographers then it needn't and probably shouldn't be mentioned. (There are imaginable exceptions, such as if we have reviews saying that Hansen's work stood out among the rest.) ¶ TDC says that "The exhibitions in Cardiff, Berlin, London, Warsaw are [...] lobby and marketing exhibitions [...]". Evidence for this claim, please. ¶ TDC says "Hansen has also no solo exhibition in a relevant museum". Has he or has he not had a solo exhibition at Palais für aktuelle Kunst? If he did have one, we should be told just what it is that's irrelevant to this museum. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Hoary. I can understand that Lopifalko is offended in his vanity when the article is deleted. After all, he worked a lot on it. And it's really touching that you are committed to it. But your commitment doesn't make the article more relevant. There seems to be other interests than the quality of Wikipedia, whichever. The Palais für aktuelle Kunst is completely meaningless in Germany.--77.181.14.177 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Hoary.It is not important which phone provider you are with, but what you have to say and what you do for the quality of Wikipedia.--89.204.153.237 (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TDC: I'm touched to read that you're touched! However, you really need to think twice before accusing other users of vanity. Now, the "relevance" of this article on Hansen: relevance to what? And this museum that you claim is "completely meaningless in Germany": the de:WP article about it has just had its tenth birthday; are you planning to take it as well to WP:Löschkandidaten (AfD)? (I note that the museum is so meaningless that, for example, a change of its chairman is a news story at sh:z; perhaps sh:z too is completely meaningless in Germany.) ¶ You are right; what you contribute is more important than which ISP you are using. But see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Hoary: Well, Germany apparently has a higher quality standard. Well, then keep the article and use Wikipedia as yellow page :-) I am out. Bye. --77.181.14.177 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per independent coverage. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Hansen listed as #3 in the "12 Best Street Photographers In The World Right Now!" by the Huffington Post.--Jburlinson (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find this article, Jburlinson? I looked, and I can't find it. (The Wayback Machine doesn't have anything for this URL.) I see a lot of articles with related titles at huffingtonpost.com, and I have to say that they don't impress me. Hansen does get an (appreciative) mention here, but this is all that Google finds for me at this website. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is strange that the article appears to be gone from HuffPost. There is a video of the article here on Vimeo. Note the URL provided there (huffingtonpost.com/entry/10-best-street-photographers-in-the-world-right-now_us_59efbb6de4b00a4ce5a2225d) claims 10 best in the URL but 12 best in the title. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:12, 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 delete. Many various rationales presented here for deletion: synthesis, original research, non-notable, not covered in sources as a set, and unverified. Consensus is clear for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (angle)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I can't find reliable sources discussing the list entries as a group or set. — Newslinger talk 11:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally concurring with Newslinger, and Winged Blades of Godric in this series of articles and their deletion discussions, }, I fail to see what use at all this 'article' can have on Wikipedia. If it is supposed to be humorours like his 'science' antics at RfA, then it has failed miserably - Wikipedia is not a joke site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I know there are many of these lists, but this one seems particularly silly. For length, mass, and possibly other basic units it makes sense to categorise them in terms of orders of magnitude, but angles are different: there is only an indefinite regress in one direction, and the "article" only manages one example (the Planck angle, whatever that is). The rest really is just fluff. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. This really does seem to be a completely unencyclopedic article of no value whatsoever. It is pure WP:SYNTH in that while angles of course exist, there is no reliable secondary source - indeed no overall source at all - to justify the topic as an article subject. I do hope this was not an attempt at humour: if it was, it was utterly inappropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncited, unverified WP:OR. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom and per my statement at other AfDs on articles of same vein. ∯WBG^converse 19:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lepricavark (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think the delete case is persuasive on this one. I could see an interesting essay being written about ever-shrinking angles — that's the sort of organizational theme that Isaac Asimov might have used in a short nonfiction piece, like shorter-and-shorter lengths or higher-and-higher temperatures. But that wouldn't be a Wikipedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(shivers) I think I hear SNOW DELETE on this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to angle under an "Examples" section. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 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 Procedural close.. Nomination combined with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films produced and released by Black Sheep Productions. postdlf (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sheep Productions[edit]

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

Attempts to Speedy Delete this unsourced article about a startup company are being thwarted, so I will ask the community if its presence here is deserved. Capt. Milokan (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ciera Angelia (actress)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My PROD was contested by the author without comment or improvement. This article has no sources except IMDB (not a WP:RS) and I was unable to find any additional coverage. shoy (reactions) 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself fails to assert notability: lead role in a 17 min film on which we have no article by a director whose only film that is, and small roles otherwise. Fails WP:ACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a US Actor Stub. Newsmediasource (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Newsmediasource (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete article lacks any reliable sources. Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 17:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added valid references to this page. – Newsmediasource (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not yet meet NACTOR or BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 15:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please strongly consider keeping. There are thousands of US Actor Stubs that exist which are identical to this article with much less information. -- Newsmediasource (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Newsmediasource (talk · contribs) has already voted 'keep' above; not sure what continued lobbying is meant to accomplish. They also have not responded to a COI notice of a week ago. See full edit history. 2601:188:180:1481:7868:6144:7C5D:484A (talk) 17:49, 24 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 18:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films produced and released by Black Sheep Productions[edit]

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

Black Sheep Productions: Black Sheep Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats); (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SPA account removed Speedy Delete tag, so I am taking it here to AfD to get consensus on whether the article should stay or go. Personally, I think it does not meet the WP:CORP requirements. Capt. Milokan (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Speedy tags can't be removed like that and we shouldn't reward it with process. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've combined the AFD for the parent article Black Sheep Productions with this list (there was no discussion yet at the other nomination); this should have been bundled together as the content is interdependent. postdlf (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7/G11, per Finnusertop. Cabayi (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could find a good number of hits in Google news, but all were just mentions, none with enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both per nom and Postdif. SpinningSpark 16:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and WP:NCORP/WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Delete both (possibly speedy) ... having added the missing Template:Find sources AFD for Black Sheep Productions I observe hits for the name from Google Books that are currently unexplained, however I believe they refer to different entities than the current article content refers to. In the unlikely event the article is not deleted it is likely the current article name requires a change to something more specific.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've take a look at the removal of the speedy on the article and my opinion is simply persisting re-instating the speedy removed by the creator and templating up though to warning level four should have been sufficient to get them blocked rather than coming to AfD. The discussion on the various uses of Black Sheep Productions should be an indicator to the next person creating an article under this name that is should be created as a more specific name and not try to claim the primary topic. I'm normally wouldn't have been here except for the Find sources AFD but as I am here I concur with delete justifications and will go with those rather than remaining neutral.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Some of those seem to be for a film company existing around the 1960s, but definitely different from the Filipino company that is the subject here. In fact, it seems to be a popular company name. IMdB lists eight companies of that name or similar. There is an Irish film production company, a US event production company, a Belgian event tent hire company, a group of artists supplying the entertainment industry, and a theatre company. Whether any of them are notable enough to be the primary topic at this name is a different question from the one being asked at this AfD. SpinningSpark 14:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both, Black Sheep Productions under A7, List of films produced and released by Black Sheep Productions under A11 or just G8. Sam Sailor 15:48, 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. Michig (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Sawda'[edit]

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

I saved the best 'till last. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND and REALITY.

The pin points to the Gulf Petrochem oil terminal in Fujairah. Some mountain.

That's it, folks. I'm done. No more UAE Geostubs to delete. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Mount McNabb. SpinningSpark 16:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please God, this isn't taken as an instruction... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire All of these are garbage. Natureium (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such crap, much bad. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to not agree with the above editors, del per WP:DEL7, fails WP:V. Sam Sailor 10:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not able to find any references. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 02:22, 25 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 07:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subaykhah[edit]

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

Second to last. Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to disused huts on coast south of Suwayfah. Not a legally recognised settlement. Sabkha is Arabic for salt flat, common terrain in UAE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not seeing any sources for this place. There is a Subaykhah in Oman however, which maybe should have an article here. SpinningSpark 15:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to exist in other countries, but not here. And the entirety of the article is "Subaykah is a location in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates." What kind of location? Is this "location" notable in any way if it were to even exist? Natureium (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Sam Sailor 15:11, 24 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. I agree with several editors opinions that the article c9ntains a lot of sources that are routine appointment announcements. However, I do feel that there are enough in depth sources both in the article and presented here in the discussion to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack van den Berg[edit]

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

Football player and coach who fails WP:NFOOTY (entire career in 3rd-5th Dutch divisions). Highly questionable GNG status despite a lot of coverage (most of it is routine). BlameRuiner (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems hard to verify with these citations, article is poorly written and seems to suffer from being WP:PROMOTIONAL. Govvy (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy, which phrases felt promotional or were poorly written? Could you fix in the text? I wrote the article and took great care to write everything very factual and well referenced (non-routine). The player turned coach has 40 years of extensive coverage online so not difficult at all. Passes the WP:GNG with flying colors. WP:ANYBIO as well. gidonb (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – Article on a full-time professional football coach (in between clubs) who clearly clearly passes the WP:GNG, as supported by WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTROUTINE, and WP:NEXIST. Coverage is not routine as Van den Berg won the national Rinus Michels Award, led his team to the championship of the Tweede Klasse last year and previously has been noted as uniquely coaching and promoting the first squads of two long time rivals from the same small town into the level next competitions, in the very same season. The article is so poorly written that is was awarded C-class by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Nothing promotional about this article either; it tells the dry facts of coach's football career. Finally, we do not have rules against foreign language references, especially not for people working in countries where English is not the official language. It is one of the better referenced articles in our encyclopedia, as acknowledged also through the quality score. gidonb (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: Would you mind presenting the best WP:THREE sources available for him in terms of passing WP:GNG? I looked through and everything seems on the routine side so I'm leaning delete, but it's also mostly in Dutch, which I can't read without use of a translation service. SportingFlyer talk 11:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Insertcleverphrasehere below that winning the Rinus Michels Award is a big deal that comes with lots of coverage and makes these managers into a household names, prompting increased interest over the entire span of careers. Everyone should make up their own mind based on the reliable sources, significant coverage that for a large part are not routine. Before we sidetrack the conversation, however, it is important to note that also "'routine coverage' is not a disqualification for notability". So let's stick to the core. Jack van den Berg clearly passes the WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, per WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTROUTINE, and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering other Rinus Michels amateur winners include Wilfred van Leeuwen (there's some coverage of his move to an assistant coach at FC Eindhoven but probably should be AfD'd) and Simon Ouaali's coverage of winning the award is similar to [7] and appears to be a borderline article for AfD as well (I did find [8] on Oualli.) I don't think winning the award as an amateur coach is a presumptive notability grant which is why I'm curious as to what the best three sources are. Also, you quote WP:NOTROUTINE which is an essay. SportingFlyer talk 15:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wilfred van Leeuwen was THE manager of FC Eindhoven last year. Simon Ouaali currently coaches a professional team. There are great sources on all these nationally famed managers in all the articles and otherwise online. Ex-article, online Reliable Sources count just as well per WP:NEXIST. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions on Jack van den Berg, as others do, and AfD as you please. gidonb (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on van Leeuwen - it looked to me as if he was the trainer under Nascimento since I don't read Dutch. I'm leaning keep, I just want to see another feature article or two - a lot of these articles are only a couple paragraphs long. SportingFlyer talk 01:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do read Dutch but not knowing a language one can still make good contributions, including in AFDs. It just takes a little extra time. Here the research has been done. Helpful quotes are in the references. Titles have been translated. If something remains unclear, you can stick it into Google Translate. These 30 references are just a small part of what has been published about Van den Berg, from the 1970s upto this very month. There is much more but the article is well referenced as is. gidonb (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: It is difficult when you're not familiar with the language. It's clear to me the sources I've tried can't show notability (for instance, a long interview with him) - if you could please point me to one additional feature article on him apart from the ones linked below (it can be in the article already) I'll vote keep. SportingFlyer talk 07:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, interviews are longer and other articles are shorter. That's how journalism works. It makes sense. If the journalist tells about coach's thoughts when he takes his dog out, we'd quickly move on to the next item. When the coach tells in first voice that only then he feels happy, we say interesting. So you're aiming for somewhat of an impossibility, hopefully not on purpose. That said, this article is at eight paragraphs rather long. Enjoy! gidonb (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I also like the "dubbelfunctie" article that Insertcleverphrasehere quotes. gidonb (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well written and well cited article, and the wiki won't be improved by deleting it. There are quite a few sources that are pretty good, which go into his background in a non-trivial way (such as [https://voetbalindebollenstreek.nl/jack-berg-volgt-dick-schreuder-op-vv-katwijk/}). He won a notable award (the Rinus Michels Award) which arguably satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1; for a person in his profession it is a top award. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately even with the couple paragraphs of biographical information, the article you linked appears to me to be a routine announcement of a coaching transaction. I also don't think the award is an automatic notability grant - he won the amateur team award, which arguably isn't a "top award in the field." I'm still on the fence about this one - do better sources exist? SportingFlyer talk 11:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For amateur club coaches, it is a top award. There is an absolute mountain of sources about this guy on google news searches, nearly all of which are in dutch which makes it tough to dig through everything. I can't quite find anything that screams 'awesome rock solid source' but there is a ton of stuff like this, and there is probably additional coverage in print media, as his playing career and coaching career stretches back quite a while into the pre-internet age, but this is going to be impossible for anyone to find unless they know a lot about football in the Netherlands. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Actually, I did just find this article on him, which is pretty great. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: is voetballrotterdam.nl an acceptable site to use? I honestly can't tell if it's a blog or a professional publication. SportingFlyer talk 15:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds! Voetbal Rotterdam is one of the Dutch prime sources for soccer news. A news site that competes with the dailies and with Voetbal International, the Dutch prime soccer magazine. gidonb (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I found a second source discussing him in detail: see [9]. Combined with [10], This should be enough for GNG, even if you want to say that he doesn't qualify for WP:ANYBIO #1. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:11, 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. Semi-procedural close; a discussion of if/where to merge this is ongoing elsewhere. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Casual Games[edit]

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

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Suggest merge to Microsoft Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is that way. Regards So Why 11:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: I don't think there's anything wrong with the nom suggesting where content could go. It doesn't change the provided deletion rationale of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. SK#1 applies if no deletion rationale was given. -- ferret (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I disagree. Per WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE, if a problem with content can be addressed by editing (which includes merging), deletion is not the correct way to handle it. And if the nominator admits that this can be handled by merging, the only question is, why don't they do that instead? Regards So Why 11:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per SoWhy. The likely outcome here is a redirect or merge, so just do it in my humble opinion. -- ferret (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MegaMEX2001: Hello i am MegaMEX2001 the creator of article of Microsoft Casual Games, one the reasons whereby I wrote the article, it was with the intention of mainly informing readers who have a taste for videogames either on developers, genres, graphic design among others. This helping to solve doubts those who have the interest to know about which teams of developers have made the amount of games.

I'm a fan of Microsoft Studios games. I also like Sony Interactive Entertainment and Nintendo games, but one of my favorite companies is the aforementioned one, the reason why I wrote the article is that I was curious that when entering the official page of Microsoft Studios, you will be able to find, an option in the part of above in the right the studies that have the same division, among them 'Microsoft Casula Games'.

https://www.microsoftstudios.com/

if we visit in its official page we can see that this small team is responsible for the development of the classic games that appeared in Windows systems later.

however, if we visit that same page we will get 4 options, 'home', 'games', 'community' and 'about'. if we give in the last option 'about', we will appear that it is a small team in charge of developing the classic games of Microsoft Windows.

https://microsoftcasualgames.com/#about — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Not enough for a standalone article, MegaMEX2001. I've started a merger discussion in this place. Sorry for wasting your time. Merger Discussion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the article is small, but at least reports that it is an internal Microsoft study, although I think that in the future you can mention something related to Microsoft Casual Games User:MegaMEX2001 01:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my colleague Lee Vilenski, since the night I was investigating a bit of the Microsoft Casual Games team, I found your YouTube channel and if it is a team dedicated to the development of games--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ29-dg0T5c. Currently they are developing a new game in which you can visit from your YouTube channel— Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaMEX2001 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zidm[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to barren area of hilly terrain. No reference to the ruined village of Zidm could I find that doesn't derive from WP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This implies that zidm is actually Arabic for ruin. In which case, this may be a misunderstanding. SpinningSpark 13:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is this page, but it appears to be based on the same dodgy US intelligence agency database as the source in the article. SpinningSpark 13:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - based on same source, which was itself based on the TOS survey of 1959. A bunch of wee Brits in short trousers with clipboards wandering around the countryside asking passing locals, 'What's this?' 'Oh, this? It's just a ruin.' 'So what do you call it?' *funny look* 'Ruin'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alexandermcnabb: Do you mind adding this info to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hundreds_of_garbage_articles_created_by_blocked_user? People are wondering why John Carter added these stubs... WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @WhisperToMe: Done! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SpinningSpark 11:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Sam Sailor 09:48, 24 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 18:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aazhakadal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM as there is no content proving notability within the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD was closed as no consensus, so this is a valid renomination. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 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 01:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More sources here.

https://www.filmibeat.com/malayalam/movies/azhakadal.html#cast https://malayalasangeetham.info/m.php?6847 https://www.m3db.com/film/27835
Anish Viswa 15:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all rubbish sources as far as establishing notability goes. As far as I can tell, they are all basic database entries like IMdB and likely list all films uncritically. The Fimlbeat source does have a link to "Critics Review", but all it says is "Critics Review Coming Soon.." and has done since 2011. SpinningSpark 11:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:09, 10 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 08:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is one review in the article that the proposer seems to have overlooked, but I am not finding anything additional to establish notability. SpinningSpark 12:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no objections to a sourced recreation, but as the article stands now it does not meet NFILM. Sam Sailor 15:05, 24 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 13:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Kirby[edit]

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

The subject fails to satisfy WP:BIO and the general notabilty guideline. Jill Kirby is a former think tank director and failed Southwark Council candidate. Current sources are a directory listing and 8th place mention in council election results. Searching finds numerous brief mentions in articles about BBC news programs which she has appeared on but no significant coverage. PROD was declined in 2017. Gab4gab (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 00:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 10 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 08:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails with the current sourcing BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 14:46, 24 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 18:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genetec[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Spammy article without reliable sources. The sources found in the previous AfD are trivial passing mentions that don't cover the company in any detail or rehashed press releases ("Genetec announced that..."). None of that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Even if better sources were to be found, the current article is pure spam, and deleting it would not add any additional effort to the complete rewrite that would be necessary: WP:TNT applies. Huon (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was going to vote delete then saw the discussion at the first afd, a number of refs were identified but they didn't end up inline at the article. So...I will see what happens with those refs, if anything, and vote later. Szzuk (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I gave it a chance. Szzuk (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 10 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 08:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, none of the sources found at the first AFD in 2012 are high quality, and nothing positive has happened with the article since. Apart from an SPA trying to turn it into a blatant company page in Special:Diff/591903860/597113166. Blow it up and let somebody without a COI rewrite an article in the future, if they think they can. Sam Sailor 14:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced for four years and nobody has fixed it. I looked over the "Further reading" section to see if any of those could be used as WP:RS. Not. My first thought was, WTF, somebody's trying to delete Genentech??, but quickly discovered my error :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches find various items, but they are predominantly routine release or contract announcements, which confirm this to be a company going about its business, but fall short of the WP:NCORP criteria. AllyD (talk) 16:30, 25 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. Multiple criteria by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanraj Shelke[edit]

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

Lacks notability. The independent sources in the article like this or this don't mention him, and the 58 Google results[11] don't immediately seem to contain anything better. No Google News results either. Nothing in Marathi either[12][13]. Fram (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11 ~~Delete~~ Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG as well. article looks like his art portfolio and a promo piece. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas hopelessly promotional. Lead is copied from dhanrajshelkeart.com Vexations (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G11 & WP:G12 --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I have changed Delete to Speedy Delete in agreement with you. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:12, 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 procedural close. Before blanking the page, it is a redirect, so it should be gone to WP:RFD. If you want to nominate target page, please renominate that article instead (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bani Fasan[edit]

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

Former stub, fails WP:V, GNG. Turned into a redirect to RAK, but no reason why the phrase 'Bani Fasan' would be relevant to RAK. Useless. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:42, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Pundit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable and apparently-defunct political blog which was briefly mentioned in a couple right-wing sources once upon a time but hasn't had anything posted in more than a year; traffic and Alexa rank have cratered into the 5 million range. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Previous AfD (three years ago) was closed as no consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a defunct website that was really only notable for one video it produced. I know there's a one event policy for individuals and I'm assuming that's also true for organizations. If I'm wrong about that then change my vote to keep because that video did get coverage from multiple sources.Sandals1 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the notability guideline for web-specific content are not found. Sam Sailor 13:36, 24 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 Procedural close. @Alexandermcnabb: deletion of redirects is discussed at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 18:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Ghumaylah[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GEOLAND, GNG. Someone turned it into a redirect but it's useless cruft. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 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. Discussion shows that whilst some sourcing can be found for these clubs the level of coverage is at best trivial / routine. Fenix down (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodhya City F.C.[edit]

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

This article fails the WP:GNG as it hasn't competed at a national club level. Not Homura (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to add these articles as they also fail the WP:GNG guidelines.

Sing Rakhangthong Muangkan F.C.
Mahidol University Sport Science F.C.
Pad Siam F.C.
Thonburi University F.C.

Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, failing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment complete mischaracterisation of WP:GNG on the part of the nominator. Did they mean WP:FOOTYN? I don't read Thai, but there's a chance Ayodhya City FC and Pad Siam FC do pass WP:GNG. The other ones can go. SportingFlyer talk 11:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are you talking about Not Homura? Competing at a national club level has nothing to do with the WP:GNG. If you meant FOOTYN (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability), that isn't a guideline and isn't any kind of deletion rationale. What we need here is a discussion on lack of sources available, and I see no evidence that the Nominator has done a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer's comment indicates they might have (but that user tends to be too linient in handing out GNG candy to sources). It isn't clear if GiantSnowman or Govvy have done a search or simply assessed the sources in the articles (please clarify). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply All teams say they didn't compete in the FA Cup, there for, they can't qualify WP:FOOTYN, also, GNG asks for multiple reliable sources. I don't see that what so ever. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Insertcleverphrasehere: where is your evidence of notability. Happy to reconsider if you can provide something. GiantSnowman 13:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So to clarify, @GiantSnowman: and @Govvy: You haven't done any search for sources before !voting delete, but just based on the currently bad state of sourcing in the articles? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BEFORE applies to the nominator and I trust that they have done it. As stated, if you have found additional sources which demonstrates notability then I will change my !vote. Giant Snowman 14:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it's Thai football in Taiwanese! I am an Englishman that lives in England, working on English wikipedia! Insertcleverphrasehere, I think you're lacking some common-sense if you think that I can find enough sources for amateur football on the other side of the world run in a different language!! Govvy (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: There is an issue with blindly trusting the nominator (who has said nothing to the effect that they have searched) and then !voting 'delete' based on that trust (quite aside from the fact that the nominator's statement on this article makes no freaking sense at all "This article fails the WP:GNG as it hasn't competed at a national club level"), This AfD for 5 separate articles has three total delete !votes, and I'm pretty sure that nobody (with the possible exception of SportingFlyer) has done any sort of search for sources for additional coverage. You claim that the topics don't meet the WP:GNG, but if you haven't searched you can't possibly know that. The GNG doesn't consider only the sourcing in the article, it also considers all other sources that might be available (and if you haven't even bothered to look, how the heck are you supposed to know?).

@Govvy: so you don't even bother to try a quick google search? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whats with you? Why are you so mad? Why are you assuming I haven't done a google search, where is your evidence for that? To start with, never expect every person to run web searches, you are not winning any points here, I don't like this argumentative approach you have chosen. There are multiple clues here and wording is key to notability guidelines. Amateur leagues for one, like non-league football requires greater source verification to pass basic GNG. Clubs can't simply be added to wikipedia because they were created yesterday, last week or three years ago. I don't see the coverage for these teams, I don't see anything you have contribute here to change my mind. So I will stick with what I know, and the articles fails multiple guidelines. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (Insertcleverphrasehere) has clearly never heard of WP:AGF... Giant Snowman 14:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: you specifically stated above that you didn't think a search was necessary, this is disappointing, because foreign topics are already difficult to find sources for, but if nobody searches and is simply willing to !vote delete based on the current sourcing in the article, then it contributes to systemic bias in the wiki. @Govvy: If my comments came across as 'mad' that was not my intention; perhaps you have done a search, but I would have expected you to say so in this diff if so. I apologise for misinterpreting that, but feel free to correct me. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: GNG candy? What the heck does that mean? The articles I mentioned at least have sources - I haven't tried to read them/translate them - but they're not necessarily unsourced. SportingFlyer talk 22:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify; in my opinion (based on other club AfDs that you have participated in) you have a tendency to overestimate the 'significant coverage' aspect of sources when assessing a source for meeting the GNG requirements. This criteria is of course subjective, but it means that I generally have to double check whenever you say something meets the GNG (or "has a chance of meeting"). I'd suggest using google chrome, as it has a built in 'translate this page' feature that makes machine translation of foreign sources trivial. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. After a search for the English and Thai names, I can't find anything but routine coverage for any of the clubs. There are a few brief mentions of Thonburi University F.C. here here and here. And there is a bit of routine coverage of Ayodhya City F.C. here. Pad Siam F.C. is covered here but I couldn't find anything else. I couldn't find much of anything for the others except appearance in listings such as this and this, which don't contribute to notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These really should have been nominated separately. Since not meeting the GNG is the main argument here, each subject will need to be individually assessed. Suggest procedurally closing the latter four and re-nominating if appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some brief Google searches reveal the following. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For Ayodhya City F.C., A single article on supersubthailand.com, a minor football website.[14]
- For Sing Rakhangthong Muangkan F.C., a two-minute scoop by SMMTV, a satellite channel.[15]
- For Mahidol University Sport Science F.C., two paragraphs in an article covering all the teams in the Amateur League on FourFourTwo.com,[16] a Mahidol University press release regarding their championship of the 2015 Ngor Royal Cup.[17]
- For Pad Siam F.C., a three-minute morning news scoop by Nation TV, a national news channel.[18]
- For Thonburi University F.C., two paragraphs in the same FourFourTwo article.[19]

Good work finding that FourFourTwo article, but I don't think that would meet 'significant coverage' requirements for these clubs individually. It is probably a great source for the League article though. Probably the only source among what you and I found that meets WP:SIGCOV is the one for Pad Siam F.C., but I can't find another source for that club. So long as we do searches for all the articles, we shouldn't need to start individual AfDs for all of them (this is what I was trying to get at above, but it seems I wasn't clear enough and rubbed some other editors the wrong way). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:00, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruje Yasmin[edit]

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

Not close to meeting WP:JOURNALIST. She received some minor coverage for her internship / traineeship and has been subsequently mentioned in the context of the training program (e.g. - here, appears to be connected to the program). It also appears (dead link) she was listed in the "emerging" sub-list of British Bangladeshi Power & Inspiration. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are not finding better than the given references in relation to an employment training programme, which is not inherently notable, and more recently an appearance in an event photo caption [20]. These verify the subject as a working journalist but nothing indicates achievements to meet the WP:JOURNALIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a professional journalist, but lacks the sort of secondary coverage that makes a journalist notable, stuff like journalists writing about the material she has written, no profiles, but, mainly, no engagement with her work or discussion of it by secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to back up notability under BASIC/GNG or JOURNALIST. Sam Sailor 12:51, 24 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 all. Michig (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal ad Daya'[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG, GEOLAND. Pin points to a farm & mosque on the Rugaylat road near Khor Fakkan in Sharjah. Also the below, all of which are part of the same series of stubs. BEFORE on all shows no result beyond WP generated cruft. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not verifiable. Reliability of reference is questionable, considering its poor track record in the other "Jabal" AfDs. — Newslinger talk 08:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 11:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point I don't know why I'm wasting time actually looking at these when all the other similar articles are hoaxes. Natureium (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "hoaxes," just badly captured data from the pre-internet world. SportingFlyer talk 02:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, "badly captured data from the pre-internet world" is a very elegant summation SportingFlyer! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, they fail WP:V. If somebody wants to recreate them sourced, no problem, but trying to salvage these mass creations based on old and dubious information by John Carter is a time sink. Sam Sailor 09:40, 24 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. All three participants in the discussion feel that the article qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTPROMOTION. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Venkayya[edit]

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

I'm going to ship this to AFD, given a) that it's written with some spammy intent and b) the first few pages of Google indicate this particular person may not be notable. Izno (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 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 05:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatantly promotional. Deb (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL14 and WP:NOTPROMOTION, fails BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 09:33, 24 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. Michig (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo De Feo[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is quite limited, consisting of minor quotations from the subject, short passing mentions and name checks. The article is reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 17 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 01:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple instatances of coverage outside of LDS published sources including multiple mentions in Toronto et al's seminal work on the LDS Church in Italy. How the nominator has classed this top scholarly work widely recognized as one of the best works on religious change in Italy among other things as a primary source is hard to understand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Could you post some of those sources here in the discussion? I performed WP:BEFORE searches prior to nominating this for deletion, but not finding significant coverage in independent sources. For example, this source in the article has quotations from the subject (e.g. "according to local Rome Stake President Massimo De Feo, who says", "According to De Feo", "According to Massimo De Feo", "De Feo said"), but provides no biographical information about the subject. Quotations from a subject about an LDS temple does not extend to then make that person notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the totally ignored scholarly coverage provided in the article we have this [21] Deseret News faith section, meant to broadly cover religion, with significant mention of Feo. Here is another DN news article with mention of Feo [22]. We get his mention as the main point man on the Rome Italy Temple in article after article such as this one [www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/29/new-mormon-temple-in-rome-fuels-polemics/].John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Source review: The Mormons in the Piazza: History of The Latter-day Saints in Italy source in the article is not able to be previewed, as I tried to do so here, but there's no "search inside this book" option. So, that source lists page 505 as having content about the subject. So, even if the entire page is only about the subject, that's only one source. The rest so far are all primary or provide only passing mentions, quotations, the subject acting as a spokesperson, and name checks. Below is a synopsis of the sources presented in the comment directly above.

[23] – Just about all quotations from the subject. There are two very short sentences in this article about the subject that are not quotations. Not significant coverage; essentially a primary source per being mostly quotations.
[24] – Consists entirely of a short quotation from the subject. This is primary, and also is not significant coverage.
[www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/29/new-mormon-temple-in-rome-fuels-polemics/] – Another passing mention of the subject acting as a spokesperson. No biographical content about the subject here, primary, not significant coverage.

Permalco[edit]

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

Promotional puff piece about a company of dubious notability. The pictures used in the article are claimed as 'own work' and the author is listed as 'ОАО «Пермалко»'- possibly a case of undisclosed paid editing. eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pelmalco is heir apparent of THE OLDEST enterprise of Perm Krai (1895) and one of the oldest in Ural Region among food and drink companies. Even scientists investigate its history^[1]. The company is on the list of the largest enterprises of Perm Krai and a a considerable conrtibutor into the economy of the region, they do produce spirits of the high quality which is regularlly prooved by the prizez they receive at national and international contesets (Grand Prixs and medals at The International Spirits Challenge, London; San Francisco World Spirits Competition, Meiningers International Spirits Award ISW, The International Taste & Quality Institute, Brussels, New York International Spirits Competition, Berlin International Spirits Competition, Internationaler Spiritusen Wettbewerb (Neustadt), several times vodka of Permalco was accepted as the best vodka of the year - this is an objective and independent proof of Permalco. Or they're all bought and worthless?

Is it bad that some pictures are of Permalco - that they gave it in free use at Wikimedia Commons? May be others which is in public pomain[25], [26], [27] is bad as well? OK, I remove modern images.

Can eh bien mon prince show me which pieces of the article are just promotional puff? I'll work with them! Thanks for your remarks!--Pustov (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources cited in the article (of dubious reliability, but no matter), says it is the 23rd largest in the country (directly contradicting the lede) - surely this size alone doesn't make it notable. The article is choke-full of platitudes ("Permalko caters home market and exports its products to CIS countries, Europe, the USA, and Africa"). There's a whole section dedicated to a bunch of medals and awards, and generally it reads like a press release. If you created this article (and the ru.wiki equivalent) on behalf of the company, you really need to disclose that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now "Permalco" is on top-20 in Russia[28][29][30], and it means they develop successfully.

— Platitudes? May be it's the matter ot view. But there do your sharp eye see them more? Let's get rid of them!

— "whole section of medals" I gess we don't understand each other... If there's neсessity to prove the importance of the company and its products, that's that the independent experts in Germany, England, USA, Russia and other countries already did - by this medals^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]. Awards at eh bien mon prince page — are they promotional puff or it's objective indication on his big work at Wikipedia?--Pustov (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more links to English Language sources: ^[17] and ^[18].Pustov (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Сливницына Л. А., Полыгалова А. А. История экономического развития «Пермалко» // Научное сообщество студентов XXI столетия. Сб. ст. по мат. XXVII междунар. студ. науч.-практ. конф. № 12(27)
^ "Лучшая водка и спирты 2018". Русская водка.
^ "Итоги международного конкурса «Лучший продукт-2018»" (PDF). Продэкспо.
^ Category: Vodka, Tasting Medal: Gold. GRADUS Permalko JSC // ISC 2018 Winners.
^ "Meiningers International Spirits Award ISW 2018. ISW. Wednesday, 11. July 2018 - 9:00". Meiningers International Spirits Award. 11 July 2018.
^ Gradus Alfa Spirit // Meininger Online. 27.06.2018.
^ "Awarded products – Permalko JSC. Gradus Vodka". The International Taste & Quality Institute – iTQi.
^ "Awarded Products 2018". The International Taste & Quality Institute – iTQi.
^ World Drinks Awards. World Best Brandy, Liqueur, Rum and Vodka announced 20 April 2018 // World Drinks Awards. Vodka. Pure Natural Vodka. P. 6.
^ Лучшая водка 2017 // Водка Premium. Отраслевой специализированный каталог.
^ Топ-10 российских марок водки в 2016 году // Контур.Алко/ Подготовка, сверка с контрагентами и отправка алкогольной отчетности в ФСРАР. 01.02.2017.
^ "Русский резерв Экспорт // Водка Premium. Отраслевой специализированный каталог.
^ Gradus. Silver medal // San Francisco World Spirits Competition. Browse results: By Class. White Spirits. Vodka.
^ 2017 Winners. Bronze. Vodka // New York International Spirits Competition.
^ 2017 Winners. Bronze. Vodka // Berlin International Spirits Competition.
^ Kaznacheyskaya. Original russischer Vodka // Vinoteca 2013. Die wein & spirituosenvielfalt.
^ Company Overview of Permalko JSC // Bloomberg
^ Permalko // Amber Beverage Group

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 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 04:59, 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 13:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Ruwaydah[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG and Geoland. Pin points to wadi near village of Tawyeen. There are sources for an area called Ruwaydah on the Batinah coast of Oman. Also in Qatar! There's a single mention of a 500 metre high Jebel Ruwaydah at the head of the Wadi Sidkha (near Khatt), but that seems a little tenuous. It's certainly not at this location and not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not verifiable. Reliability of reference is questionable, considering its poor track record in the other "Jabal" AfDs. — Newslinger talk 08:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per verifiability and track record of creator. Natureium (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking notability and verifiability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Sam Sailor 19:30, 24 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 19:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Sharmah[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, GNG and GEOLAND. Pin points to area of hilly terrain west of Masafi. This is my first attempt at a batch AfD so there may be some occasional explosions and outbreaks of swearing. Each of the below also fail, IMHO, WP:V, GNG and GEOLAND. I have added what I hope are useful notes. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not verifiable. Reliability of reference is questionable, considering its poor track record in the other "Jabal" AfDs. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't even bother trying to verify the rest of them. This is ridiculous. Natureium (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per usual reasons, applicable. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as per lack of verifiability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, WP:V-failure. Sam Sailor 19:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete all, per WP:V. AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:06, 25 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) 19:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parbati Rai[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage found. Also, two of the sources have an IP address in their URLs, and they are dead, so the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist) nomination could not be verified. Finally, the third source does not clearly mention the name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just to note there's a previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parbati Rai (dancer) however I believe these are 2 different people ? .....~~ Anyway delete as fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed candidates don't usually pass WP:NPOL. At 93 she is unlikely to have a long political career, but hey way to go for trying at that age. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for political office, which is the only claim being made here, is not an inclusion criterion on Wikipedia — a person needs to either win the election, or have a strong claim to preexisting notability that would already have gotten them an article anyway. And no, there are no notability freebies for being older than other non-winning candidates either. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Competent man[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable outside of Robert A. Heinlein. Consists almost entirely of the creator's own interpretations of Heinlein's works. Online, non-RS sources discuss the subject only in relation to Heinrein. The section on 'competence porn' is about an entirely different subject which may be notable, but the section as written is POV and more importantly should not be in this article. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is most definitely a thing: see [31], [32], [33] for examples. I agree that this needs more reliable sources to be cited: the last two above should be a start. The link to the closely-related concept of "competence porn" is also entirely relevant: see [34]. -- The Anome (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anome. SpinningSpark 09:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG as above, anyway should not have been brought here, more appropriate to have a discussion to merge with hero. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Satisfies GNG, as was pointed out at the previous AfD. James500 (talk) 01:08, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100s BC (disambiguation)[edit]

Only 2 articles in each, no links to them and 0 views when I checked (maybe more because I visited them). {{redirected}} and {{for}} etc are good enough to provide disambiguation, no need for articles. The centuries are defiantly the main topic. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 02:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - a clear case of WP:TWODABS. There's already a hatnote on the century pages, this is a totally unnecessary dab. No need to redirect. MarginalCost (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; clear WP:TWODABS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 24 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Fusco[edit]

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

Not finding any book reviews or anything on Google Scholar. Fails WP:NACADEMIC WP:NAUTHOR. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book "Our Orwell, Right or Left" is held by 740 libraries: [35]. The 43 library holdings of the book "Old Ghosts of New England" [36] make a total of 783. Coverage in the Hartford Courant newspaper: [37]. James500 (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 10 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 02:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fusco also appears to be a teacher and cross country and track coach at Avon High School. [38] [39] There's some local coverage of him for this but IDK if it is enough for notability. [40] [41] Also note this review of one of his books.IntoThinAir (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete No doubt his book on Orwell is in lots of libraries, but I don't think that meets any notability standards. Google scholar saws it's only cited 5 times and that's not enough to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. The only sources are from his publishers and being a high school English teacher and track coach doesn't show notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandals1 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own searching is turning up no WP:RS. The two references in the article are 404's. No indication in the article that he did anything noteworthy. The reiview found by IntoThinAir doesn't excite me much; it's one paragraph in a column of multiple reviews, by a New England centric publication, covering, a new bumper crop of books about our region, which makes it WP:ROUTINE. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I opened all the refs provided above and didn't find anything that satisfied WP:N. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 26 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) 18:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Schemmer[edit]

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

Non-notable minor performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of Schemmer's roles appear to be minor so he does not satisfy WP:NACTOR (and I fail to see evidence he satisfies the other standards there). I had a look for coverage on his screenplay work and only found passing mentions about his involvement in non-notable films, which is not enough for him to satisfy WP:NFILMMAKER. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Thine Antique Pen. Even the Google News sources can't be used in a meaningful way such they'd pass WP:NOTNEWS.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:07, 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.

[1] "Hartlepool Fights Back Against Economist Slur".

[2] "Don't cry for Hartlepool Marina".

[3] Сливницына Л. А., Полыгалова А. А. История экономического развития «Пермалко» // Научное сообщество студентов XXI столетия. Сб. ст. по мат. XXVII междунар. студ. науч.-практ. конф. № 12(27)

[4] "Лучшая водка и спирты 2018". Русская водка.

[5] "Итоги международного конкурса «Лучший продукт-2018»" (PDF). Продэкспо.

[6] Category: Vodka, Tasting Medal: Gold. GRADUS Permalko JSC // ISC 2018 Winners.

[7] "Meiningers International Spirits Award ISW 2018. ISW. Wednesday, 11. July 2018 - 9:00". Meiningers International Spirits Award. 11 July 2018.

[8] Gradus Alfa Spirit // Meininger Online. 27.06.2018.

[9] "Awarded products – Permalko JSC. Gradus Vodka". The International Taste & Quality Institute – iTQi.

[10] "Awarded Products 2018". The International Taste & Quality Institute – iTQi.

[11] World Drinks Awards. World Best Brandy, Liqueur, Rum and Vodka announced 20 April 2018 // World Drinks Awards. Vodka. Pure Natural Vodka. P. 6.

[12] Лучшая водка 2017 // Водка Premium. Отраслевой специализированный каталог.

[13] Топ-10 российских марок водки в 2016 году // Контур.Алко/ Подготовка, сверка с контрагентами и отправка алкогольной отчетности в ФСРАР. 01.02.2017.

[14] "Русский резерв Экспорт // Водка Premium. Отраслевой специализированный каталог.

[15] Gradus. Silver medal // San Francisco World Spirits Competition. Browse results: By Class. White Spirits. Vodka.

[16] 2017 Winners. Bronze. Vodka // New York International Spirits Competition.

[17] 2017 Winners. Bronze. Vodka // Berlin International Spirits Competition.

[18] Kaznacheyskaya. Original russischer Vodka // Vinoteca 2013. Die wein & spirituosenvielfalt.

[19] Company Overview of Permalko JSC // Bloomberg

[20] Permalko // Amber Beverage Group

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]