Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 October	30 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 keep. Nominator withdrawal and consensus for a Keep. Since there is also consensus for the move I'll do that as well. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andraphisia[edit]

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

This genus name is usually considered to be a synonym of Pachyna, which does not have an article. If Pachyna later exists, this would redirect to that title. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. If it is a synonym (and one of the page's own sources says it is) then at worst this is a move to Pachyna, retaining the synonym information in the article. This is not really my subject, but as I understand the convention, since Weymer published before Kirby, Weymer should take precedence in naming. SpinningSpark 12:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: is right. I should have thought that through before nominating. There is sufficient sourcing for a stub under that name. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:10, 30 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 Momentum. Although several votes were to keep, the fact that some of them were based on human opinion has no doubt caused them to disregard WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTN, therefore this will be redirected for the timebeing. If you feel that there may be an issue, please see WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (momentum)[edit]

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

Originally researched stuff that is horribly wrong, (atleast, as to the first value that I checked, about the garden snail one) and I've got exactly zero idea about how he came to the values, other than some attempt at guessing the constituent data of mass and velocity and multiplying them down.Some of the constituent data are sourced but even then, it fails WP:LISTN. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) to high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia.∯WBG^converse 03:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally concurring with Winged Blades of Godric,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) 04:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand, that when you are into some dubious stuff, why bother to invite greater scrutiny upon yourself?! I arrived here from his RfA question:-) ∯WBG^converse 05:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nearly all of the list entries are either unreferenced or supported by unreliable sources. — Newslinger talk 09:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Also, it doesn't seem fair to be nominating this article for deletion as a reprisal for the creator's !vote at RfA – see WP:HOUND. Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is the length related RFC/AfD any linked with the one over here? And, please retract your accusations.If you think that I am hounding an editor, AN is thatway. ∯WBG^converse 12:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: Are we considering all the articles in the template to deletion or just the badly sourced ones? --MaoGo (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am bothered, this AFD is solely bothered with this particular article. I have launched other AfDs on topics of similar vein, which are all violations of LISTN and/or are ill sourced but not all that are present in the template have been sent to AfD.∯WBG^converse 13:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt is pretty easy to reference the mass and speed for things entered at various magnitudes. This information is readily sourceable. It helps a student of physics to develop a practical appreciation of what a given amount of momentum amountts to. Edison (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read LISTN ? ∯WBG^converse 00:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for wasting my time by telling me to read a silly essay. Edison (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison:--I did not know, that you, (despite having the shiny badge), won't know WP:LISTN and shall be aided by an explict link.Apologies,∯WBG^converse 16:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! And, did you read the nomination statement which explicitly mentions and links LISTN?∯WBG^converse 17:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”It fails some silly essay I linked to” is just not that compelling a ground for deletion. An essay is not a guideline or policy. And badges are not that shiny when you’ve been getting spat on for many years if you ever disagree with someone. Edison (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going with delete in this case. The sourcing is bad; unlike, say, wavelengths or viscosities, it's not a quantity I recall seeing tabulated like this (and I've read a good many science books in my day). By the end, it's a trainwreck. "Momentum of the sun"? Relative to what? XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well known that momentum is mass times velocity. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in creating an order of magnitude of kinetic energies, anytime soon? ∯WBG^converse 14:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be contained in Orders of magnitude (energy). —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eli355, nah.....One for kinetic energy, another for electrostatic potential energy, another for gravitational potential energy, you've missed out:-)∯WBG^converse 13:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 07:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a note that both participants and the ultimate closer may benefit from reading the other "orders of magnitude" discussions, as many similar points apply (both ways), but editor exhaustion prevents full duplication
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Originally researched claim is wrong, and this list is notable as it explains to a reader how much quantities such as 1 kg·m/s and 10 kg·m/s are. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Eli355 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Bakazaka (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. Unlike some of the other pages of this type (e.g. mass), it's not really useful to have intuitive points of reference for momentum (except within more specific domain contexts), which is why you don't find lists like this in textbooks. --Steve (talk) 19:16, 2 November 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 Shy Keenan. bd2412 T 16:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Survivors[edit]

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

Doesnt seem to be notable as an organisation separately from Shy Keenan Rathfelder (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this organization has an admirable goal, there isn't any coverage to support it. This can all be covered in the Shy Keenen article. --Kbabej (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shy Keenan. Ifnord (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shy Keenan as WP:ATD-R, as it is already mentioned there and can be further expanded. Spin-out to standalone article iff future coverage results in talk page consensus. There currently isn't much content that needs merging. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beer: The Movie[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Prod removed without explanation. SummerPhD^v2.0 23:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Sro23 (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 00:47, 6 November 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. Can be userfied via WP:REFUND on demand (but not by me). Sandstein 14:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government by assassination[edit]

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

This term appears to merely be the title of a book (Byas 1942), not a common way of describing the early 1930s time period in Japan (described at Shōwa_period#Military_state). The first AfD was closed as "stub-ify" on this article which was already a stub. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AfD-not a one-off term, but used by several authors.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that AfD establishes that; there are several Google book sources, but most of them are of the form "what an English journalist called 'Government by Assasination'"; all except "The War in the Pacific" (a short illustrated book for adolescents) directly cite Byas. One calls it Byas's take a "myth" and one an "exaggeration". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like this article would make more sense as an article about the Byas book. Such an article could discuss the book's contents and reception without having to make broader claims about the significance of the term. The book clearly passes WP:NBOOK, and it would be more straightforward to integrate an article about the book into broader topical articles throughout the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This has the feel to me of a dictionary definition covering two separate events in 1930s Japan. however I would not oppose the last suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with re-purposing to be about the book; I see a Kirkus review and a "capsule" 1-paragraph review in Foreign Affairs in addition to the scholarly references from the last AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The text could possibly be used as a draft for an article about the book. The subject is merely a non-notable, unimportant turn of phrase, as evidence by the lack of notability-supporting material. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify so that those who want to repurpose it as a book article can work on it. Can't have it "as is" in mainspace – too misleading. SpinningSpark 08:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - my references searches turn up no use of the term in significant coverage or historical use. Happy to see other examples that would strengthen the case for notability though. Isingness (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Agree with the nomination 100%. --1l2l3k (talk) 00:49, 6 November 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. Mkdw ^talk 23:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sangramsingh Thakur[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Provided sources are mere-mentions, does not meet WP:GNG. Provided filmography is of several short films of dubious notability, and most of the roles played in said films appear to be minor. The few roles which appear to not be minor are completely unreferenced; does not meet WP:NACTOR. The article was previously denied at AfC, only for the initial editor to move it to mainspace unilaterally. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and/or NACTOR by a mile or so. TOOTOOSOON.∯WBG^converse
Delete per nom; only trivial mentions Spiderone 09:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability not demonstrated. This would not have been accepted through AfC and has no place here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:08, 4 November 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. Mkdw ^talk 23:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Love[edit]

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

After I reverted an edit that outed her, the subject contacted me privately and requested that her article be deleted since it is disruptive to her life. Since her notability is relatively low, I suggest we grant her request. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although not for the nominated reasons. The refs are very poor and fail to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ENT. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FWIW, a google appears there is/are more than one performer who goes by the name "Lexi Love?" I'm no expert, but wouldn't that muddy the water? Otherwise, I agree that she's low on the notability scale in all categories. Sources are marginal if not outright inadequate. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought we had strict notability requirements for pornographic performers – major industry awards or something? I don't know exactly what those might be, but I don't see any claim or attempt to demonstrate that she satisfies the requirement. She surely isn't notable for anything else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The subject is reliably described as having become prominent under her real name, with coverage in national media like The New York Times and CBS News online. Whether the association is strong enough to meet our BLP standards is debateable, but the timing of this request lends credibility to the association. I don't believe we should suppress accurate information from Wikipedia at the request of one party to a dispute, because the more widely it is known the more likely it is to weaken their position in that dispute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So is there a reliable source that makes that connection? Does this real name national coverage overcome WP:BLP1E? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz where is the New York Times article and CBS coverage you are referring to? It could help me make a more informed i-vote. I couldn't find it , but I also don't know what real name you are referring to, and perhaps that could help the search for sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Lexi Love has edited her article and without explicit association from the RS, posting it publicly violates our BLP standards and is considered WP:OUTING. Oversight has already scrubbed an attempt to out her within the past week.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a gross misuse of WP:OUTING, which should not be applied to suppress openly published information about a public figure. "Love" herself acknowledges the information to be accurate, since it was originally taken from the WIPO trademark case, published in news reports of the case, and is he basis for "Love" saying she won back the domain name incorporating her stage name. This is not a case of protecting privacy. This is a case of a public figure, whose recent activities have been covered in national media like the NY Times, trying to suppress now-embarassing public information that can easily be seen as casting doubt on her credibility in a very public dispute. That's not something Wikipedia should be a party to, and it's disturbing that admins have placed their thumbs on the scales to limit discussion of basic issues involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahuh. Despite your liberties in presuming her motives, where are the reliable sources associating the two again? I don't see them in the article? Is it due to your lack of experience adding content to articles? Are you relying on trademark cases that fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY? Isn't keeping the article in the hopes that a reliable source will make this association make this a case of blue crystal balls? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found her real name with a bit of digging, but given that I can only find mention of that name in reliable sources in relation to one news story, and that "Lexi Love" or her past isn't mentioned at all in the coverage of that story, is there a valid reason to keep this article under its current name and in its current form as it stands? Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, see above. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to demonstrate notability; no grounds to override WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I find Richard3120's point persuasive. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I completely agree with Hullabaloo Wolfowitz that Wikipedia should not suppress potentially embarrassing information just because the subject demands it. The trouble is, I cannot find a single reliable source about this person that mentions the name "Lexi Love" in connection with her, or her past career. The arguments for keeping the article thus completely fail WP:V, and on its own, the article fails WP:GNG. If someone shows me a reliable source that explicitly states that this person was Lexi Love, I'd be happy to change my vote. Richard3120 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Nothing under "Lexi Love" or her real name, I don't know what was hidden but I'm guessing it was her name which if it was then really what did she expect ? .... Someone was going to find out one way or another ..... and in this case it only took me less than a minute .... but that aside there's nothing on Google that at all confirms her notability - If HB or others have these supposed sources then please post and I'd be happy to go with !keep. –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering references in the article are all trivial or passing mentions, the fact I was not able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary source, she fails WP:GNG. Notability not demonstrated. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Hopefully the nominator can give us a couple dozen more similar articles for speedy disposal. Carrite (talk) 13:14, 4 November 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dermot Keely[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, having not played or managed in a fully professional league, or played international football. No indication of significant coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for a same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gill (football manager) Abcmaxx (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the basis of WP:GNG. See [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], among others, for example of WP:SIGCOV. There's likely print coverage from his time as a player as well, considering the length and breadth of his playing career. 21.colinthompson (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG; needs improving to reflect this, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on WP:GNG grounds. There are Irish players who don't pass WP:GNG but we've had an influx of misses recently, probably due to over-reliance on SNGs: the top flight of Irish football has more than adequate coverage to keep articles like these. SportingFlyer talk 09:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG through it fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:59, 2 November 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 Justin Broadrick. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Hell (album)[edit]

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

nn recording. I favour redirecting; this keeps being reverted. TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a COI here? Deb (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[User:PalmTreeEden] certainly seems to pretty much only edit articles with a connection to this artist.TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability given, and I can't find any evidence in a search, therefore fail WP:NMUSIC. Wikipedia is littered with non-notable music articles written by fans, I doubt if it needs someone with direct links to the artist. Hzh (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Justin Broadrick, no claim to notability under WP:NMUSIC. Ifnord (talk) 12:23, 9 November 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. Mkdw ^talk 23:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valeri V. Cordón[edit]

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

A subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. This source listed in the article's references section provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. The remaining three listed sources are primary, which do not establish notability. Several WP:BEFORE source searches, including custom searches, are only providing minor mentions and name checks in independent, reliable sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The insistence on multiple non-LDS published sources is unreasonable. Cordon is a widely followed figure, his talk in general conference generated a lot of coverage, and he has a significant role in the LDS Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but publications that are literally owned and published by the LDS church, such as Liahona and Church News, are entirely primary sources, and are not usable to establish notability. The same goes for Lds.org content, which is the church's website. Religious subjects are not given a free pass for an article on Wikipedia; what's needed is independent coverage in multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage. It's also important to keep WP:SPIP in mind, some of which is listed below.

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 15 October 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?} 15:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:45, 29 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. bd2412 T 04:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Didier[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC. Searches are only providing name checks and faint passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. The entire article is reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in both the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History and The Religious Studies Center article. There is clearly enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. As such, it is not usable to establish notability. The BYU Religious Studies Center article has two paragraphs about the subject. An important matter is that multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 15 October 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?} 15:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. There seems to be an infestation of such articles in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Religious Studies Center link that the above editor claims as coverage is the author bio for an article by the subject published by the Religious Studies Center, not independent coverage about the subject. Other sources in the article are not independent (Ensign, Encyclopedia) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill"). The Encyclopedia of LDS History source is probably fine for factual information about the subject, but not sufficiently independent to count toward general notability of an LDS church leader (see WP:IIS). Otherwise search finds passing mentions and quotes in religious material, brief mentions in routine coverage of church announcements, and occasional quotes reproduced without analysis. It does not add up to significant coverage of this subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Open to alternatives if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 03:05, 1 November 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Davidson[edit]

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

Possibly marginally notable (although doubtful about this) but the article in its current form has few redeeming features. Rambling and promotional, and trying to justify his notability. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: if it is decided he is notable, I undertake to work on the article, probably trimming it down a lot. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It appears as though his books are all self-published through Createspace, so the subject does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. As a musician, he seems to have a few sources that discuss him; [7][8] are two examples. However, there does not seem to be a great deal of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. His recordings do not meet WP:NALBUM and so he can't inherit any press from them. If there's a criteria I don't see, or sources I've missed, I agree that a rewrite is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have had a go at finding additional references and reshaping the article a bit. It's not easy finding articles about him - I suspect that if we had access to more online newspapers in Polish, French, Spanish, etc, it would be possible to find more. I think he may meet the WP:COMPOSER guidelines: "Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria - 2. Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre." There is evidence that he has composed operas and symphonies for bagpipes, and he was certainly the first person to compose a bagpipe opera. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is advertising. The key to that is the final paragraph about his school. The books are self published. The reviews are unreliable. Criterion 2 for musicians requires notable compositions--there seems to be no evidence that the compositions he wrote have ever been performed by anyone else, let alone attracted substantial critical comment, so they are not notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched, bu tit is just as [User:DGG]] states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 5 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taso Christopher[edit]

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

Minimally sourced stub about a mayor in a mid-sized city, which just primary sources the fact that he exists and then jumps straight to a poorly contexualized and single-sourced (to a dead link) criminal allegation without actually providing any other information about him in between -- so it's posing major WP:BLP problems as well. While the city is large enough that a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article could be kept, it's not large or prominent enough that the need to maintain articles about its mayors would override how bad this article actually is. (As things currently stand, in fact, he's the only past or present mayor of the city who has a Wikipedia article without having gone on to hold higher office at the provincial or federal levels first — even his immediate predecessor didn't get an article until he became a federal MP in 2015.) Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 00:23, 5 November 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business machine[edit]

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

None of these entries mention the term 'Business machine.' Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to be somewhere between a dictionary definion (the article largely corresponds to the Merriam-Webster entry) and a broad concept article; there might also be potential for treating this within some other broader article. Regardless, the situation at present is acceptable: we've got a definition of "business machine", and a few examples of types of machines that have been referred to using this term. – Uanfala (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly hopeless article as it stands, but it is open to expansion and improvement. As a historical term and concept, it is easily notable. Many books have been written on the topic (using that exact term) in the 60s, 70s and 80s. As the article says, the term is "somewhat obsolete" so it is of little surprise that the linked articles do not use it. Wikipedia can and should have articles on obsolete technology, organisational systems, and classifications. That is exactly the mission of an encyclopaedia. SpinningSpark 00:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm fine with the page remaining a disambiguation. As this Ngram demonstrates, the term "Business machine" is fairly common; at least as common as Tabulating machine or Accounting machine. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be better to present this as a list rather than a disambiguation page. That would avoid having to make an exception of the dab guidelines. SpinningSpark 08:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, remove disambiguation tag and change to (stub) article in an appropriate category. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form per those above. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:00, 3 November 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. Discounting the !vote from confirmed sock who thinks facebook likes mean anything on wikipedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Journal[edit]

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

Not sure how is this subject notable from the references seen in the article (and was not able to find anything else). The first one is just listing the information which does not establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internet journal is the one of major IT newspaper in Myanmar, and itself establish sufficient notability. see journal cover. EpcMyanmar (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure I see the proof it is a major IT newspaper, nor how a cover makes it notable. It needs multiple reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNon notable?? wtf!! you can see Facebook page with 697K Like and verified badge, it clearly seen notable newspaper.EpcMyanmar (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, according to Wikipedia guidelines for notability, it needs secondary sources to be considered notable just like I said in my nomination, supported by WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Facebook likes do not establish notability for Wikipedia, sources do.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing shows this meets WP:NMEDIA. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify to Draft:Sorry (2017 film), where it will remain until it is substantially improved to conform with the issues raised in this discussion; if the article goes unedited for six months, it will automatically be deleted as an abandoned draft. bd2412 T 16:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry (2017 film)[edit]

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

Nominating this page again for deletion. This is a non-notable film which is not released. The motive of this is only vandalism and advertisment/ promotion of the film. Most contributors are socks and have been globally locked. Socks are used to fool wikipedia about it's release. From the creation of the article it was shown that this film will release on September 2017 it's almost 14 months passed yet no release. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 08:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are enough sources for WP:GNG to be passed. Also, this is a disruptive nomination as the previous afd by the same nominator resulted in keep on 26 August 2018 so this is a challenge of that decision that should have gone to deletion review not another AFD so soon and that is why there should be some limit on the time period for renomination of kept articles, personally I would say 3 years but at least 6 months Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Is it ok to support a film article which really doesn't exists?. It's all hoax and seems paid news for promotion of the film. I don't mind to keep it if it's released, but almost a year now its only postponed dates used for this article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it's truly liable for deletion under WP:NFF --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 04:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was the film shown at the film festival mentioned and did it win the awards listed? I can't get the refs to load today, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: as I see the article Ambarnath Film Festival again it's made by one of the socks of Ivan. I doubt that article was created to support this article, yet that article is notable and has its own importance. With this article in question there is no reliable source to prove that the film received an award. The links added to the same in the article are if a local newspaper and the website is live and everyday new news comes on that so is hard to find out the authenticity of the source. Again this may be done intentionally by the sock to provide fake citations. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you give any evidence that it's a hoax please? if it is i'll change my vote, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Atlantic306: Can you please provide three reliable sources which covers this film significantly? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete the subject doesnt pass WP:NFILM, nor WP:GNG. There is not significant coverage of that film. Even the sources used in the article are false. I removed one a few minutes ago from now, and like these: http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/viewer.aspx Not sure what Atlantic is expecting to be loaded. This lokmat article, and this source have been cited in the article. Both of them are same to the punctuation marks. The third source, has extremely minor changes in the article. While print media of Lokmat has ~~hood~~ good reputation, the e-copy has not. And this article is clearly a puff piece. And the esakal source is a brief version of the lokmat. Rest of the (non reliable) sources have only one word mention of film, in the list of films screened at Ambarnath film festival. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument here is vague, I guess you mean Lokmat has a good reputation rather than a hood reputation which would be bad! Also you say that the film was shown at the festival in which case the article is not so much a fake? but the references are a press release ? please clarify if you want me to change my vote, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is my argument vague here? If a subject doesnt have significant coverage, then are we supposed to present other sources that does not mention the subject? I never said the article/film was hoax. I said few of the sources used in the article are false. I even provided one example. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like any deletion should be deferred until the film has been released theatrically. There appears to be enough coverage of the film to suggest some notability, certainly it will be notable if it receives reviews from major publications. Hzh (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Hi. In the beginning, a similar thought had come across my mind too, but I was thinking about draftifying. But I find it strange that it was shown at a festival, and yet it hasnt been released theatrically, TV, neither on home media. Also, the release date is backed up by three sources; two of which are user generated, and third source doesnt mention the release date. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unusual for a film to be shown in a festival first before it is released theatrically. You see it often, sometimes even for television series. For example, Sundance Film Festival often shows films that had not been released theatrically, such as Call Me by Your Name (you can look into its release history). Perhaps they feel the publicity at the festival will be good for the film when it is finally released to the public. It is what many film-makers often do, usually independent ones, sometimes major Hollywood films are also shown in film festivals first, such as the Cannes Film Festival and other festivals (e.g. this year A Star Is Born premiered at the Venice Film Festival first). It is not an issue for me. Hzh (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Hi. You are correct, I know it is not usual. But one year is a very long period. Also, you should see the AfD I linked in the comment below. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The release of Call Me by Your Name was over 10 months between its showing at the film festival and its (limited) theatrical release, and its wider theatrical release was even later. I've heard of films that were released a couple of years later. Can you show that the websites given in the article are perpetuating a hoax? It is a bold claim. Hzh (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: I completely agree with you, but the socking history of these articles; and background of other articles make me doubt about the authenticity of this article. In other articles, sources stating that the films were screened at Toronto film festival were provided. It is possible the same thing is happening here. One film won an award in the film festival that wasn't even operational at that time. I see no reason nor any source confirming this movie was nominated for awards in Ambarnath film festival. I can read Marathi language, and couldn't find any source confirming it was nominated. A film being screened at a non notable film festival of same regional language, is not enough to have an article. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Hzh's analysis, it is WP:TOOSOON. It might become notable if it gets theatrical release (or at least gets substantial independent media attention prior to that). But it hasn't yet. In the mean time, it's just a sock magnet. It's now been a few months after the last AFD, and it's now many more months after the sources claim it will be released. Seems like the project stalled? When it gets released and gets more than writing about standard parts of its filming, it could merit an article. DMacks (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing administrator: Apparently all the articles related to the director of this movie are based on lies. Kindly see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratisaad - The Response, a bundled AfD. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
pinging @Hzh, Atlantic306, Tiven2240, and DMacks: —usernamekiran(talk) 21:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you might have found possible errors in the articles does not make them lies. Hzh (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is the bedrock of wikipedia content. If we have content that is not supported by WP:RS, it should be removed. If it's just a mistake, such as an incorrect year, it should be fixed. And that should be trivial to figure out because there would be a cited reliable source to support what is correct. But if there is no supportable claim of notability (because the claims of notability fail verification), then the article fails WP:GNG at this time. DMacks (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the source news article to mean the film was awarded, although it did not specify the precise award, and that would be my issue with the source. Hzh (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft changing vote to move to draftspace and wait until it is released before the AFC process as there are valid concerns of fakery and whether it will actually get released, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A306.∯WBG^converse 10:21, 4 November 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. If somebody wants to redirect this somewhere, that's fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puneet Kaura[edit]

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

Very much a CV with promotional elements. See WP:NOTPROMO. Otherwise failing WP:BIO. The sources are very much primary and read like PR. Most claims are not independent, but mentioned by the subject. The sources indicate a CEO doing his job and talking about it. Little in terms of independent, secondary coverage about the subject as opposed to what the subject talks about. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I made some changes in the article and removed the promotional and adverting information to make it neutral. Now, it meets WP:GNG. Pasha1807 (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Some of the overly promotional wording has been removed. However promotional wording affects WP:NPOV and not WP:GNG. There still is a concern that the majority of sources are not independent (mostly PR) or connected to the firm. Other sources are about the firm, but not the subject per se. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to company article per nom. NONINDEPENDENT reporting, from a standalone basis is missing as is passage of GNG/ANYBIO.∯WBG^converse 09:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Puneet has been covered by several mainstream media such as India Infoline, The Financial Express (India), Business Standard and he has an independent coverage on 1. He was also recognized by Aviation Week & Space Technology as "Top 40 leaders under the age of 40." That makes him enough notable per WP:Notability (people). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:385:5F48:E39C:D420:75DC:4FA8 (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC) — 2405:204:385:5F48:E39C:D420:75DC:4FA8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is all PR, though, unfortunately and mostly about the firm, where he speaks on behalf of the firm, as opposed to about him. WP:ANYBIO states awards or honour should be "well-known" or "significant". I would argue that something like "40 under 40" or "30 under 30" as is listed by many organisations or magazines is not an award or honour per-se, but rather contextualised reporting. Similarly, the WEF Young Leaders are not generally considered sufficient for notability in the absence of other editorial reporting. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:BIO. This remains very promotional. Ifnord (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ifnord rationales. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:19, 9 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katerina Grolliou[edit]

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

Both article and a general search do not show in-depth coverage of subject in RS. GNG Fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much -besides some listings- found on her in Greek. The most extensive reference is an obituary [9] (she died last year) in the website of a local paper of Corfu, Greece since she had family ties to the island, and she is well remembered by her friends there. ——Chalk19 (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably. As an artist, she needs to meet one of the 'Creative professionals' criteria, and I think she probably meets #4: "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Her obituary (thank you Chalk19) states that she "has exhibited in Greece, Cyprus and Italy in more than 20 solo exhibitions and 7 group exhibitions; Her works have been housed in a permanent exhibition at showcases at the State School of Fine Arts in Florence since 1986, at the Cultural Center of the City of Athens since 1994 and at the Gallery of the Municipality of Corfu since 1996. Also her works are included in the publications:
1. "The Greek Jewel 5000 Years Tradition - Hellenic Goldsmith's Center " Edition: ELKA Ltd., Athens 1995
2. "Il mestiere dell arte - Istituto Statale D 'Arte" Version: ISTITUTO STATALE D 'ARTE, Florence 1997
3. "The Greek Jewel 6000 Years Tradition" Edition: Archaeological Resources and Expropriations Fund, MINISTRY OF CULTURE, Athens 1997.

Even searching the web in English, it can be difficult to find evidence or reviews of exhibitions without knowing the name of the gallery and the date. The galleries are named here (in English), and there are a few dates, so digging around might find something - if it's online. However, I think that the fact that her work is held in 3 galleries and included in three books does indicate that she was considered a notable jeweller. 2 of those books are in the references - perhaps the 3rd could be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have revised the article to reflect that she has died, and make the tone more objective. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per article citations, 20 one-person shows, permanent public works in museum collections. Netherzone (talk) 03:26, 3 November 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. Mkdw ^talk 23:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Albert Towner[edit]

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

Non-notable accountant, inadequate RS found to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too difficult to establish notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claims to notability are not backed up by sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:57, 5 November 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. bd2412 T 04:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Pop Max (UK & Ireland)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, Fails NOTTVGUIDE & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 7 November 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. bd2412 T 04:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Pop (UK & Ireland)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, Fails NOTTVGUIDE & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:08, 7 November 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. bd2412 T 04:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Tiny Pop (UK & Ireland)[edit]

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

Article created by a sock - Socks have been adding programme list to these articles for years, Seems someone has come up with a sneaky way of including this list, Anyway Fails NOTTVGUIDE & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loliamawesome (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:08, 7 November 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. as per sources provided. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail (singer)[edit]

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

Non notable singer, She apparently had a few #1s on "British NRG chart" but cannot find any evidence of that, I did this which says both of her covers reached #29 and #94 respectively, Outside of OfficialCharts there's nothing confirming any notability, Fails NMUSIC & GNG

Also nominating her albums:

–Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As nomination points out she had a top 40 hit in the UK. Good for WP:MUSIC#2. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. (emphasis mine) - May not Is,

That aside one cover-single at #29 isn't (or shouldn't) be the be all and end all of notability here - There's no reviews of her cover-single nor are there any indepth coverage in reliable sources on her as a person/artist ... The best we have in terms of notability is this one source which quite frankly isn't anywhere near enough to justify keeping this article, Had she had 3-4 top 40s fine we wouldn't be here now but like I said one cover isn't the be all and end all here,

If anyone can find any evidence of notability on either the BLP or albums I'd be more than happy to keep. –Davey2010^Talk 02:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A clear pass of NMUSIC does not fail NMUSIC as you claimed. may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. May not Isn't. Why shouldn't a single at #29 be enough. That didn't happen in a vacuum. And it wasn't all she had, she also hit #1 on Billboard's Club Dance chart with at least one other top ten.

As for sources. Online is not the best for a mid 90s British singer but there is allmusic new link and very short review, billboard [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:03, 30 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. A separate editorial consensus can be decided as to whether the articles should be merged, changed, or moved. COI and edit warring are separate issues that can be reported at the appropriate noticeboards. Any decision should be as a result of consensus. Mkdw ^talk 23:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lantern Entertainment[edit]

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

While Lantern Entertainment is a new corporate form, it is basically The Weinstein Company as having bought their assets and hired most of their staff, basically buying the Weinstein Company. Requesting deletion so The Weinstein Company can be moved to Lantern Entertainment. DreamWorks Studios/Pictures, Marvel Entertainment (Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc., ToyBiz/Marvel Enterprise/Marvel Entertainment Inc, Marvel Entertainment, LLC) and The Disney Company (Disney Productions, The Disney Company/Disney Enterprise, The Disney Company - post CC/ABC merger) all follow this route - that the change in business form does not create a new subject and thus article. Spshu (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Spshu: You seem to be proposing a merge/redirect of The Weinstein Company to Lantern Entertainment, which doesn't require AfD involvement. Can you clarify why you're bringing it here, rather than merging the content directly (presumably after seeking consensus on the article talk pages)? Bakazaka (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Weinstein Company was already move to Lantern Entertainment and some one got it moved back with out much discussion (history page is confusing - it looks like it was done by several editors). At the talk page, it was two Lantern employees requesting the split - we don't do PR for them, thus no original discussion for LE/TWC to be move back to TWC. I am proposing that Lantern Entertainment be deleted, so The Weinstein Company (TWC) article can be renamed to Lantern Entertainment, as far as I know with the Lantern article existing I cannot do it (an administrator can). I had already update The Weinstein Company article with the Lantern Entertainment name change, only for another editor to revert it. As is the Lantern Entertainment on its own does not have any notability. Spshu (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I may have address your issue from the wrong direction. Yes, this could have been done under Speed Deletion G6. Technical deletions. (page to be moved). But given above move, I expected resistance as indicate by Hayholt's reversion. Spshu (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Speedy Keep under WP: SKCRIT#2D. Based on the explanation above, this nomination seems to be an attempt to settle a content dispute without achieving consensus on article talk pages. Neither article needs to be deleted or moved, given that anyone can merge content from The Weinstein Company into Lantern Entertainment without deleting or moving either article. The talk page discussion on The Weinstein Company does not have a merge proposal listed, but the discussion there seems to be divided on making a single article in any event, and at least one experienced editor there (who is not a Lantern Entertainment employee) suggests keeping two articles. Bakazaka (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Merging content from The Weinstein Company into Lantern Entertainment would separate EDITING HISTORY (against WP:ATTREQ) as TWC is the longer article, @Bakazaka:. Thus anyone suggesting or doing "given that anyone can merge content from The Weinstein Company into Lantern Entertainment without deleting or moving either article". Thus SPEEDY DELETION G6. Technical deletions: "For copy-and-paste page moves that need to be temporarily deleted to make room for a clean page move." This was a move that done before then reverted with out discussion. Yes, give DDG then Hayholt, some one would have opposed the Speedy deletion. There is next to no content on Lantern Entertainment that isn't on TWC or related articles, just need to changed the current name, logo, etc. So there is no content dispute. Spshu (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution can be addressed with histmerge. There is even a place to go for help: Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. It's clear what you think ought to be done, but there's no consensus for that, and taking this issue to AfD bypasses the basic operation of the encyclopedia. I encourage you to re-engage in discussion on article talk pages, and settle this content dispute through dispute resolution channels. Bakazaka (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also curious, and agree with with User:Bakazaka. Also, why have only 1 article instead of two? They are 2 separate brand names and essentially two different companies, but not the same enough for a continuation. Hayholt (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are enough of the same as the new owners bought the core set of assets of TWC. As changing names, business forms or owner/parent company doesn't not constitute "essentially two different companies" as explain in the above AfD nominations or we would have multiple Disney articles. Marvel Comics in its Timely and Atlas eras operated under dozens of corporate entities such that the next issue of the same title might be under a different corporate name. It is Marvel's long history that gets them separate articles. There were "essentially two different" DreamWorks, DW Studios, LLC that was the remainder of the original DreamWorks and owned by Paramount then the restarted DreamWorks, which took some projects in the works from the old DW Studios. This (TWC→LE) amounts to a name change along with a business form change not a new business. Spshu (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Obviously notable as de facto continuation of TWC. Just merge the content out of AfD per WP:BURO; there's plenty of sources for all of this and deletion isn't going to happen. Nate • (chatter) 13:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But they being BURO, citing different legal form for not recognizing TWC as LE. DreamWorks II was a defacto continuation of the first DreamWorks thus was kept together. Spshu (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question. How can you consider likely outcome a reason to support your position that is like WP:MAJORITY (some argument to avoid), but before too many have even posted a position? I have been shot down in attempts to split DreamWorks and Marvel Entertainment, so considering it likely, seem a bit brash to assume. Spshu (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consider my vote! changed to Speedy Keep then per Bakazaka; you're trying to use AfD to TNT an article without cause and going past our other procedures regarding merge/splits. We're not here to discuss other quixotic split attempts, just this article in particular. Nate • (chatter) 17:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep separate brands. But entirely different except for assets. Also they wsnt to distance themselves from TWC for obvious reasons. Hayholt (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, we don't answer to the company. Renaming is at times "separate branding". Spshu (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, Not necessary to treat this as a continuation for a variety of reasons. Hayholt (talk) 14:46, 31 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. Mkdw ^talk 23:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Carson[edit]

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

Non-notable pianist. Seems to have been speedily deleted in 2011, but immediately recreated.

If deleted, the Chris Carson (American football) article should probably be moved to this location. Natg 19 (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Note that at least four accounts in the edit history only ever edited this article. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Bakazaka (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSICBIO Dom from Paris (talk) 18:59, 5 November 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. CSD A11 SpinningSpark 19:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liguori prime[edit]

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

Prod with rationale "WP:NFT, WP:NOR" was removed without comment by the article creator, who also appears to be the creator of the concept. With no reliable sources, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NUMBER. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A11. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably speedily: this appears to be all about the author, made up by him, and completely sourceless. NFT and NOR do seem to apply directly, in which case WP:A11 would be right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A11 and arguably WP:G12 — the first "reference" is the creator's GitHub page, from which the article text was apparently copied, and the second is to a draft OEIS sequence that the creator wants to name after himself. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 29 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 09:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South-Eastern Ukraine[edit]

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

Why should we combine two completely different regions Southern Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine in one article? This is artificial. Shmurak (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's a political point to be made, perhaps? Delete as not notable, and probably falling foul of WP:POV. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; article does not contain any referenced information that is not completely obvious and hence not notable.... ("South-Eastern Ukraine is comprising the Southern and Eastern parts of Ukraine"; so is South-Eastern Australia comprising the Southern and Eastern parts of Australia....) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research. Carrite (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not original research. The equivalent article in Russian is much more expanded and this one can be expanded by translating. Also there is an existing article in the Ukrainian wiki, as well as in the Finnish wiki. There is no WP:SYNTH here, as this region encompasses all the regions with major Russian influence. Besides, there are lots of sources that widely mention the region, which can easily be found by doing a googlebooks search. --1l2l3k (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1l2l3k, even if this area encompasses all the regions with major Russian influence (I am not sure about this, especially about the words all and major), that would not mean that such region exist as separate cultural and historical macroregion. --Shmurak (talk) 08:12, 7 November 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 to delete, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 04:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pilsen Neighbors Community Council[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this local organization per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google Scholar search threw up quite a few hits - the ones I clicked on were behind paywalls however, so I wasn't able to establish whether they would count as significant coverage. Have you checked these?GirthSummit _(blether) 10:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find the significant coverage required by the GNG. There were lots of passing mentions, but most were about the Fiesta del Sol and were in the "things to do this weekend" category. They appear to be a local organization doing good work, but they're not notable.Sandals1 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on account of subject adequately meeting criteria of Wikinotability. We find it in sources such as ABC7 (here), The Chicago Sun Times; (here), South Side Weekly (here), Univision Chicago (here), etc. Also in books:

Wilson, Catherine E. (2008). The Politics of Latino Faith: Religion, Identity, and Urban Community. NYU Press. pp. 52–54. ISBN 978-0814794142.
Aschenbrenner, Joyce; Collins, Lloyd R., eds. (2011). The Processes of Urbanism: A Multidisciplinary Approach. World Anthropology. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 97–101. ISBN 978-3-11-080179-8.
Ruiz, Vicki L.; Sánchez Korrol, Virginia, eds. (2006). Latinas in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Indiana University Press. pp. 575–6. ISBN 978-0253346803.

-The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be most useful if people would evaluate the sources presented by The Gnome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:The Gnome. I see no issue in his sources (although much of one of them is behind a paywall), and this article thereby meets WP:GNG. --John M Wolfson (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete or redirect !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 13:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Amanda Duffy[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Unremarkable crime, and I don't think that being reviewed by the cold case unit & attraticng press attention on the back of that makes it in any way notable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The crime itself is unremarkable, but the outcome prompted a national discussion about the continued use of the "not proven" verdict in Scotland. It was because of this case that George Robertson introduced a private members' bill to scrap the "not proven" verdict in 1993, and the Scottish Office consulted on its retention in 1994. I'll add reference to this to the article. Zcbeaton (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, convincing claim for notability. I wish people would include information like this when they first create a page.TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after improvements done. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, rather unusually for an article on a murder this does have a legitimate place in an encyclopedia, as originally noted, but now emphasised, in the article text. Thank you for the improvements (and the withdrawal). Thincat (talk) 09:17, 30 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 Hadf. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hadhf[edit]

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

This article fails WP:V. As per previous AfDs, "Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates" is not a reliable source and all I see is mirror copies of this Wikipedia article online and it is not a notable settlement. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. However, please consider wp:CONSONANTS, which suggests that Hadhf is super-important. --Doncram (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doncram: Just because it has four consonants, it doesn't mean that it is notable. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same place as Hadf in Oman? Because that's where the coords point to, and that article says it is under some sort of condominium with the Emirates. pinging user:Alexandermcnabb. SpinningSpark 19:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SpinningSpark: Possibly and the coordinate could have been plotted inaccurately compared to Hadf. However, the article says it is a settlement in Ajman which is in UAE so the article is so inaccurate. Regards. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SpinningSpark: @Pkbwcgs: Hiya! Agh. Just agh. Okay, so Ajman and Oman jointly administered this territory until the border was finalised, when Hadf (a tiny farming community of highly dubious notability) and Sinadil (one of the few Carter Creations that got rescued, mostly due to the good offices of his sparkiness) which is next to it ended up on the 'other side of the fence'. I nipped over there a few weekends ago to try and work out what was happening there (when we were debating Sinadil and other Carterstubs in the area, SS!). Google lassos both together as 'Hadf', I'd have said Sinadil was the noteworthy human settlement and the farming area of Hadf would be a mention on the Sinadil page, but I'll leave that call to you gents. Hadf existeth and is in Oman. Hadhf can go or become a redirect, IMHO. For students of sublime irony, Hadf is Arabic for deletion! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case redirect to Hadf. The notability of the latter is a separate issue, but would likely survive an AfD per WP:GEOLAND as it is a populated place and presumably legally recognised as there is an inter-country agreement concerning it. SpinningSpark 08:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:44, 30 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) 18:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Football[edit]

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

Delete I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Lots of references but notability isn't inherited. Sponsoring awards that are won by the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo doesn't translate to notability of the product/company. Becoming a sponsor similarly doesn't translate as per WP:NOTINHERIT. Mentions-in-passing such as the DailyMail reference are not in-depth and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails the test of notability in its own right and fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 10 million+ downloads on Android. I haven't looked at any of the refs, maybe they aren't good, but those numbers are very big. Szzuk (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Download numbers do not equal a reliable source, and can easily be gamed, so mean nothing objectively. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this strictly promotional text, trying to pass as encyclopaedic material. The sources are almost all self-referential, primary, or embarassingly adulatory. Some (e.g. this) are not even related to the subject of the article, an article created by a crypto-currency-article-pushing, monopurpose account, to boot. -The Gnome (talk) 17:22, 9 November 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 Achaemenid Empire#Achaemenid timeline with no prejudice against recreation into a more complete article (as per the consensus). XOR'easter's was WP:JUSTAVOTE before they elaborated in their replies to AlessandroTiandelli333. The nominator and Peterkingiron also support redirecting despite not formatting their comments as "redirect". Therefore, minus AlessandroTiandelli333's merge argument, there's clear consensus to redirect and that this doesn't warrant its own article at this time. This is a redirect discussion that just happened to take place at AFD. And that's why I'm closing this as redirect. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Achaemenid Empire[edit]

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

Started back in 2015, only has two entries. Unless someone is willing to make the effort to fill in the full timeline, it is of little value. There are plenty of articles about the Achaemenid Empire for people interested in the history of this major Persian Empire, including the well written article: Achaemenid Empire. Chewings72 (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Achaemenid Empire#Achaemenid timeline. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this page was made largely to host the moving infographic on the right hand side of the page, which by all accounts is very informative. I think this should have a place somewhere on Wikipedia. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a nice animation, but it's already used at Achaemenid Empire#Cultural phase. Does it really need a page all to itself? XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Achaemenid Empire#Achaemenid timeline, per XOR'easter. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I support Johnbod's suggestion.Chewings72 (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; too incomplete to be a standalone. No prejudice against re-creation if somebody wants to add enough sourced content to justify a standalone article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While not opposing the suggested outcome, a timeline in this form, giving the important dates in a list might be useful, but would need a lot more material added to be worth having. The timeline in the article is so cramped that it is not really useable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 3 November 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. bd2412 T 04:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The UNC Cadence[edit]

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

Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for similar reasons to my rationale here. Even the one source I found ([17]) is mainly about one of the band members and not the band itself.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSICBIO. The source above is a press release. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:05, 5 November 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 Slow Turismo. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rubycon (band)[edit]

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

~~Non notable band. There is a little local interest coverage around their participation in a student battle of the band contest but that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability in independent sources. Even the references that are on the page go "Page not found".—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slow Turismo, which has three of Rubycon's members (the Conway brothers). I've just created it by using the content from this article, which I had recently added in an attempt to save it from deletion. The refs indicate that Slow Turismo, itself, is notable due to reviews of their releases and their touring nationally.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slow Turismo. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:42, 31 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Life Pty Ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT. The one independent source only discusses the subject trivially, and my search didn't bring up any better sources. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: there's no evidence that this small chain meets WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In sufficient WP:NEXIST - I cannot see how the subject is notable in its own right. Perhaps potential trimmed merge to an article on this type of store or market sector. Aoziwe (talk) 14:13, 31 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. Guidelines are exactly that, a guideline to help determine whether a subject is notable. At the end of the day, the subject must be proven notable by having significant and in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. As indicated by the discussion, much of the coverage revolved around the election results, providing a stronger argument about the notability of the election (event) rather than the successful candidate. No individual is automatically notable. Mkdw ^talk 21:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Cassetti[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN as a mayor of a small town. Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 10:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayor of small town with no other claim to significance. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayor of a place of 20,000 people that is not even the center of a larger region, but a city on the edge of the metro-areas of a few more imporant cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ansonia CT is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free notability pass just for existing as mayors, but this features neither the sourcing nor the substance needed to get him over the bar that not-automatically-notable mayors have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer. Sakaimover (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am improving the article presently. Please review before any action is taken.

Update - The article now has a number of citations, including five from different news sources of record. This should be enough to prove notability. Markvs88 (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still a strong delete - all of the references are local political coverage, and the New York Times quote is not significant coverage. SportingFlyer talk 03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, the NYT coverage is just a quotation as stated. However, the Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, and the Connecticut Post (Bridgeport) are all reliable sources from major publishers (TRONC, Hearst Communications). Of course the coverage is gong to be on a city/regional level, the guy's a mayor of a small town. This should be more than enough to pass wp:GNG as the coverage is non-trivial. Markvs88 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 21 after a "delete" closure; see the DRV for more information.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since this returned from DRV, I want to reaffirm my delete vote after reviewing the new revision for the reasons stated above. SportingFlyer talk 12:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Affirm delete: per original nom. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please explain how the article fails wp:gng? Markvs88 (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer has done so several times. Toddst1 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was upgraded considerably and Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, and the Connecticut Post (Bridgeport) are all reliable sources from major publishers (TRONC, Hearst Communications). Of course the coverage is gong to be on a city/regional level, the guy's a mayor of a small town. That said, this easily passes wp:GNG as the coverage is non-trivial. Just because there is no presumed notability does not mean presumed non-notability. Markvs88 (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I take a very broad view of notability for politicians, but this is below it.From the nature of the position, there would be expected nothing but the routine PR with which all politicians surround themselves,. The NYT article is the very opposite of substantial coverage: it is a very long article about railroad funding in Connecticut, in whichhe has two lines as the mayor of one of the many villages and towns affected. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please explain how the article fails notability? Markvs88 (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone answer me this Per WP:POLITICIAN... Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The footnote goes on to say " A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.". I can't see how this article possibly fails this metric. Markvs88 (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every local town in the U.S. has routine local political reporting. All of his significant coverage is from these routine articles. The single line quote in the NY Times, for instance, isn't significant. SportingFlyer talk 02:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, and the Connecticut Post are not "local" papers to Ansonia. Also, please cite the WP policy on local coverage not being worthy of inclusion? Because if that's true, then we can't use the NY Times to report on New York City, etc... Markvs88 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We hold politicians, for better or worse, to a more stringent standard than others for inclusion. Mayors of towns of less than 50,000 or so are generally treated at AfD very much like unelected politicians. This city has less than 20,000 people, so it's not really even an edge case in that regard. Carrite (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the size of the town a disqualifying factor, or merely a primary consideration which is difficult to overcome? My reading of WP:POLITICIAN is the latter. Would an extremely long tenure matter? What about significant coverage based on other public activities? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be the latter - if the mayor received national attention or had other hooks to notability. SportingFlyer talk 20:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So in a nutshell: no mayor of North Ogden, Utah would be notable, ever, even if reported in the Salt Lake Tribune. But now we can create an article for Brent Taylor because he was killed in Afghanistan [18]. Oh, wait, that's the Salt Lake Tribune, we need to use [19] USA Today instead. I find this logic baffling... a news source of record is a news source of record. Markvs88 (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every incorporated community in the U.S. has a mayor, and almost if not every community has routine local political coverage about their mayors. The coverage for Cassetti is par for the course small town mayor coverage. I don't think Taylor would necessarily deserve an article, either. SportingFlyer talk 23:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Markvs88, your hectoring of every delete vote is bordering on WP:POINTy. Sporting Flyer and several others have all said effectively the same thing. Small town mayors typically are not notable for just being mayor and having routine local coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

House of Piña[edit]

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

Bogus. No footnotes or references. There is no Marquisate of Benidoleig. Article says that the third marquis, Fernando Fernandes de Piña, married Sofía of Aragón, daughter of King James II of Aragón who had no daughter by that name.

The 6th marquis, Santiago de Piña y Aragón de Castillo, supposedly married Yolande of Anjou, daughter of Louis II of Naples. She married Philip I, Duke of Brabant and secondly, Francis I, Duke of Brittany. Maragm (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Also, the County of Huesca, title held by the Alberto V, mentioned in the family tree, does not exist. Another made-up title. --Maragm (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're saying there is no House of Piña and the information is entirely fabricated? If so, this is quite a conspiracy. Spanishhistory created the page, User talk:129.219.21.2 added a list of family members, Frizzysparrow added a family crest, and 68.231.146.162 added more content.
The page does have a number of references. Let's look at the Foster translation of Chronicle first. I managed to find a copy online. It does mention a "Fernando Perez de Pina" as in the article. This doesn't really validate any of the content in the article though; the Chronicle is a long-form first-hand account that just seems to touch on the lives of aa few people named Pina. The other references are even less helpful. The Britannica article on the Foster is irrelevant; he's just the translator of the work above. I couldn't find any of the mentioned persons on the Hobbs website. I couldn't access the Instituto de Salazar y Castro article.
Overall, the references lend little credence to this house even existing. This is absurd; if this noble family exists, it should not be that hard to find a reference to it. However, I am still having trouble believing that the whole page is a hoax. Why would people take so much effort to make this up? BenKuykendall (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Nothing to back it up. Utterly fails WP:V. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find scattered references to a Barón de Benidoleig (different family) but absolutely none to Marqués de de Benidoleig. We don't have to decide whether it is a hoax or not: if they are that obscure they aren't notable. Agricolae (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a couple of references on a Sancho de Pina (not Piña) who participated in the siege of Benilodeig and, like many others who also participated, was rewarded by the King with land, in this case, the town of Benilodeig, but not the title.

Also refs on Ximén Pérez de Pina who died before 1276 according to one of the sources (not 1340 as mentioned in the article) but no mention of a title. This reference mentions Fernando de Pina (p. 211), Sancho and Ximen Pérez de Pina (p. 212) as participating in the conquest of Valencia, but does not mention the title of the marquisate or that they were in any way related to each other.

So there is mention of these early “Pinas” but none that indicate that they were part of the same family and there is no mention that they were titled nobility.

Now, when it comes to the title and the titleholders, there is no reference whatsoever on a Marquisate of Benidoleig. If there were such references, we would find, for example, the publication of the “Real Carta de Sucesión (Royal charter of Succession) which must, by law, be published by the Ministry of Justice in Spain in the BOE (Official State Gazette). I have added this reference to the BOE in several articles such as here and, if this title were to exist, there would be references to the official notice on the succession.

In the “Present day” section of this article, it mentions that “His Excellency Don Alberto de Piña (1950-present) is a direct descendent of Sancho de Piña”. If that were the case, each of the filiations from Sancho de Pina down to this current titleholder, would have to be referenced. The references that were added are quite misleading since the Chronicle of James I of Aragon would only reference the early Pinas mentioned and their feats in the conquest of Valencia but would certainly not back up the claim of the title or any of the titleholders. The ref to Encyclopaedia Britanica does not include volume or page number so it seems to have been added just to fill in, the same with the last reference, a periodic publication; the url does not take us to a page with info on this title, only the cover of one of the volumes, without specifying in which volume and in what page we would find info on this title. So, in short, we have not one reference in this article that would back up the title or the titleholders.

Perhaps a checkuser would be required to confirm that all the users and IPs who participated in editing this article are distinct individuals and not the same person or members of the same family. As it stands now, this article should be deleted for lack of references and notability. --Maragm (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at some of the users and IPs who contributed to this article, I find:

Frizzysparrow's only edits have been in this article on 31 July and 2 August.
68.231.146.162 Only edited House of Piña, added “Madrid” to article on Duke of Alba, plus added Diego Andrés de Piña in 2012 Formula 3 Euro Series article, replacing Italian Raffaele Marciello. IP made this edit, for example, replacing Raffaele Marciello with Diego Andrés de Piña when reference does not mention Diego Andrés de Piña but Raffaele. Here, IP removes reference as he does in the following edit. Can’t access this page but Raffaele, rather tan Diego Andrés de Piña is mentioned in this news ítem. IP’s edits were later undone by another IP, adding the corresponding refs.
2601:483:C400:D760:9D99:9F46:42B6:FE34 added this paragraph with no ref and plenty of spelling and grammatical errors.
Another IP, added fictitious County of Piña to this article and then added the other non-existant County of Huesca.
It is possible to check titles in this official page. In the box "Título", if you put Benidoleig, the only references is to the baron, title that still exists, with the current titleholder who has nothing to do with the Piñas. Also, if you insert Huesca (for claimed title of Count of Huesca), the only reply is for the duchy of Huescar (not Huesca), held by members of the House of Alba.

Summing it up, this appears to be a concerted effort by individuals or perhaps just one using IPs and other sockpuppets to promote this family, removing refs such as in the case of IP 68.231.146.162 to replace referenced individual with a member of this family. Maragm (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Maragm. That's quite the research, and I'm convinced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DElete if it really is a hoax. I have to confess being taken in by it. I was going to say that we have an article for every British title of nobility and should therefore for Spanish ones. Marquis of Benidoleig would have been my target. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 3 November 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of macOS technologies[edit]

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

Indiscriminate listcruft with no focus on topic, fails WP:CSC as the term 'technology' is vague, unlike say, List of macOS components - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too much like listcruft, and the article does not cite any references. Vorbee (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminat, unfocused list with other, more specific organization of related content available in both articles and categories, and no clear path to making this encyclopedic.Dialectric (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Engebretsen[edit]

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

I've reviewed the past AfD (and the article) and I am not convinced this person passes WP:NBIO. A singe 'in-depth' source is what reads like a press release about her wedding: [20]. Then there are some sources that mention her briefly in passing, as in she has been cited/mentioned by others - hardly surprising, particularly considering she was a spokeswoman. Nothing here seems to suggest much of notability, however - no independent, in-depth coverage to speak of. Just a middle-level official that is google'able. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 2nd source in the article, the 2004 article in The State (newspaper),: "The work began two years ago, but the win began with Iowa. Jenni Engebretsen was at Nightcaps on Devine Street, hoarse from yelling, dizzy with victory and lack of sleep. She'd been in Columbia since August, the first full-time spokeswoman of the S.C. presidential campaigns. Tonight, her five months - with no days off since Thanksgiving - were paying off. Her guy, U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, surprised himself, Iowans and even his true believing staff, who'd hoped for... " is WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Looks like we need to update page, reassess sourcing because by 2011/12 the press was referring to her by her married name, Jenni LeCompte . Washington Post: Today, in a blog post on the Treasury website, Jenni LeCompte gets at why the “McConnell Provision” is essential in a world where....E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Jenni LeCompte her role in a some of Obama-administration flaps gets revisited in books by Tom Fitton, David Folkenflik, and ohters, in his book Stress Test: Reflections on Financial Crises, Timothy Geithner calls her "Jenni Engebretsen LeLecompte" at times, but uses and Jenni LeCompte in the introduction. She was "Jenni Engebretsen" in Elizabeth Edwards's memoir. It's quite a lot of coverage over a lot of years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per books noted in previous comment, and news coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't see the WP:SIGCOV. I see a passing mention of her as a campaign worker and a promotion of a blog post she wrote. I don't have access to the books so not a strong delete, but a WP:BEFORE search just brings up passing coverage that doesn't convince me there's WP:SIGCOV of her in the books - quotes of her or small promotional articles saying she joined a firm. The sourcing in the article isn't of much help: a wedding article, a passing mention, and an article she took a job. SportingFlyer talk 05:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find one source[21] but not significant coverage in multiple sources. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And a wedding announcement is basically the definition of routine! SportingFlyer talk 23:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough sourcing in the article nor in a Google search to meet WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Google search only turns up a Bloomberg profile and a few sundry press releases, but if kept strong rename to Jenni LeCompte to account for her married name. -- John M Wolfson (talk) 18:12, 10 November 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gilli Wilds[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a fictional character with no claim of significance Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be speedy deleted, but I can't think of what policy would apply to it.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources about this character, and it appears to be from a series (perhaps a television series? It's not clear in the article) that doesn't even have a page of it's own. Overall, a non-notable character from a non-notable series. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete arguably speedy as hoax, as was done for the nonexistent "TV show" in which this character is claimed to appear. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:01, 29 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sprucia Wilds[edit]

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

unsourced article about a fictional character with no claim of significance. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources about this character, and it appears to be from a series (perhaps a television series? It's not clear in the article) that doesn't even have a page of it's own. Overall, a non-notable character from a non-notable series. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as hoax from nonexistent TV show already speedied as hoax (which is why it doesn't have an article anymore). IntoThinAir (talk) 18:10, 29 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. G11ed. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 10:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prandex[edit]

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

Does not satisfy corporate notability or product notabillity. Google search shows that Prandex exists and uses the Internet extensively, but does not show independent coverage.

The purpose of the article appears to be to promote the product, and not to describe either the product or the company notably. A neutral article doesn't need to list multiple personnel.

Of the five references, three are identical, and are probably paid advertisements, and one is an opportunity to subscribe to a newsletter. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT. No significant coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam for a subject with no evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Cryptocurrency spam, for which there exists Community Sanctions and this is sheer promo-spam with PR stuff.I have tagged for G11.∯WBG^converse 16:21, 2 November 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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Winton[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and his accomplishments as a lawyer don't appear to be sufficiently distinguished. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This reads like an expanded resume for a job application. Media coverage is routine for a mayoral race and does not show notability. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing how failed political candidate passes WP:NPOL Bkissin (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for mayor of a city — but if we took that out and made this article solely about his work as a lawyer, there's no credible indication that he'd clear our notability standards for lawyers either. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as notable as my fingernails. Unless someone finds some source that alludes to even a hint of notability, I say delete. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kablammo (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus for a merge at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chioma[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:BLP. An association with a notable person does not confer any status on the subject. Eagleash (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED. Everything about her is in conjunction with her famous boyfriend, and while that might make her famous in some circles, she has not inherited her boyfriend's notability to the point at which she qualifies for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doomsdayer520. bd2412 T 04:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Davido#Controversies and delete - classic WP:NOTINHERITED. A line can be added to his controversies section about her dropping out of school, and then about their inevitable breakup. One report even has them already broken up [[22]]. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:50, 8 November 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 Martha Speaks (TV series). Not strictly the consensus, but seems like a reasonable compromise. Editors can merge from the history if necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Martha Speaks characters[edit]

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

One, the characters list fails WP:GNG. No sources except sourcing the show itself. It has been tagged with {{notability}} and {{no references}}. Zero RS published on such characters. I don't even think MS itself could meet notability guidelines - so does the characters with a separate article all together. Furthermore, I have seen pages on much more notable fictional works that don't have list of ## characters pages, such as Clifford the Big Red Dog (TV series). Also see Talk:Helen Lorraine.

Second - the list is a frequent WP:SOCK target, especially from sockpuppets of User:Simulation12 and User:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat. The sockpuppets believe the characters are notable, when they clearly aren't. Both have caused massive disruption on the page. Letting the article remain separate is WP:DNFTT.

Furthermore, in the Spanish and Portuguese articles, there is a massive list of characters in the article about the show itself. I think the episodes list can stay separate because the episodes are slightly more notable and have reliable second-party sources.

For me, the best choice is to merge with Martha Speaks (TV series), or delete entirely. 47.72.38.3 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 2407:7000:A269:8200:290D:D951:644F:30B6 (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 2407:7000:A269:8200:290D:D951:644F:30B6 (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every show that exists does not automatically need a standalone character list; this is done only in cases where the characters have some degree of real-world notability that can be referenced to reliable source coverage about the characters, and not just in-universe to the show itself. Exponentially far more TV shows don't have one of these than do — and the difference between a show that gets one of these and a show that doesn't is not a matter of "any show gets to have one as soon as an editor actually takes the time to make one", but of "shows only get one if their characters actually receive real-world coverage and analysis of their significance". That latter test is failed here big time. And there's not even much point to merging it, since the level of detail present here is patently excessive, and wouldn't add much value to the show's article — the show's article does need to have a smaller, much more trimmed-back cast list readded to it, but it doesn't need a wholesale cut and paste of everything in this page. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without coverage in independent reliable sources, this article is -- and will remain -- a collection of observations and fancruft. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as fancruft and listcruft. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the main article already lists the major characters in the series. Merging would just add more fancruft to it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Martha Speaks (TV series), a sensible merge target, although leave it for editors to choose whether anything should be merged from the history. The criticism speaks to an unjustified Spinout, but does not require deletion. A redirect decision here is strong enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 30 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 14:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tthhee Ppaarrttyy[edit]

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

Song fails to meet WP:NSONG. – The Grid (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Very little coverage online (only once source here) and no charting positions. aNode (discuss) 04:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 00:22, 2 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Ahrens[edit]

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

WP:NMODEL At this time, model lacks notability and a sufficient number of reliable sources. Article doesn’t even name what brands she has modeled for. Trillfendi (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improved. AVS (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still not enough.Trillfendi (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as the articles added, I also found two in the New York Times, one in Vogue UK, one in a Swiss magazine - there is plenty to meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article as it is, is a mess. No offense to who created it but they probably aren’t a native English speaker; it looks like it went to Google Translate first. I’ve written more than enough fashion model articles to know how it goes. Reliable sources must be independent of the subject and significant coverage. Two “model wall”-style interviews where they ask 10 short random questions really don’t cut it, and I know that from experience. If it was a long form interview or the model is actually in a magazine being interviewed that’s a different (notable) story. Mentions are not notability.Trillfendi (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comparing Amanda Murphy, Nadja Bender, Frederikke Sofie, Slick Woods, Ebonee Davis same quality level. @Trillfendi: Your experiance in poor skils of GOOGLE translate (see: fr:Anok Ya) shold not influence this discussion on deletion. AVS (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote Amanda Murphy, Nadja Bender, Frederikke Sofie, Slick Woods, Ebonee Davis, and Anok Yai’s English version manually in my native English and there have been absolutely no grammar complaints in the entire year(s) that I wrote them—until you came here out of spite. 🤔They’re written in Simple English. Anok Yai’s French version was simply created with Wikipedia’s Translation Service through Articles of Creation which I assume relies on Google Translate, the world’s worst translation service. All one has to do is press the box and it translates automatically and I assumed someone else would clean up the mess. But I did go back to manually correct such glaring errors. When I spoke of my experience in creating model articles I clearly meant I know what sources don’t pass notability. The clause was obviously depenedent on the next sentence not the previous sentence. It has nothing to do with ±the article’s grammatical quality which one could easily fix. This article doesn’t even mention her biggest jobs with sources. Before I proposed deletion it mentioned none of her work at all. Adwoa Aboah is now one of the biggest models in the world and before I recreated her article someone else had deleted it years ago. Probably because they didn’t. show. her. notability. It’s not my fault someone else went in and removed all her jobs.Trillfendi (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Avernarius, I went and fixed all the errors YOU MADE in this article, including not even spelling her name right. Check yourself before you check me.Trillfendi (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool down please. The discussion here is on contents (which I compared), not on grammar. The allegation of use of GOOGlE translate came from You. Besides: I did not create the article. AVS (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say you actually used Google Translate, I said that’s how the wording came across. I pointed out that the Sophia Ahrens article appeared to be written illegibly based on your edits according to the page history. It’s not personal, it’s an observation. The person who created the article wrote it fine until intermediate edits messed up the article to this point.Trillfendi (talk) 19:37, 5 November 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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritesh Ramakrishnan[edit]

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

FAILS WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Middle-Top level manager that is not notable enough. The sources are too weak, routine announcements press releases and passing mentions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transworld Group (Emirati company) where he's the Joint managing director of the company, As there's a whole management section there it makes sense to redirect., –Davey2010^Talk 20:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a "Middle-Top level manager", but a top-level manager. Of an enormous company. Clearly notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: he was taken on almost straight from college with a simple BSc by his father to enter the family business and was made a director of the board 2 years after that at the age of 25. The achievement of obtaining a top level post thanks to this kind of nepotism has to be taken into consideration and the sources have to be analysed. The other joint managing director is also a family member. Notability is not inherited unlike good jobs in family businesses. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I give you Chelsea Clinton! Notable purely because daddy ran a notable entity and unlike Ramakrishnan not actually involved with it in any way in a management capacity! And she's just one of many examples. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. The Chelsea Clinton page is without a shadow of a doubt sufficiently sourced which this one is not. Your keep argument WP:Clearly notable was purely based on his role in the company and not on the sources and is normally one of the !votes that should be avoided in Afd. Not all managers and even CEOs of notable companies are themselves notable. This person fails WP:ANYBIO and as there are no topic specific guidelines for business people they have to meet GNG and I do not believe this person does. I checked out likely outcomes for business people WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and there is nothing that suggests his role (even if it weren't obtained through nepotism) is a surefire keep so sources have to be looked at in depth. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you're arguing above that people shouldn't have pages just because they get roles due to their family connections! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may have misunderstood me, that was not what I was saying. I was saying in reply to your !vote that a top-level manager. Of an enormous company. Clearly notable enough for an article. is that a top role in a company is less notable if obtained by nepotism and we shouldn't just imagine that because he is a joint managing director that he must have got there because of his capabilites experience and hard work which may generate coverage. But all of that is of no consequence because managing directors don't get a free pass to notability however big the company, what counts are the sources. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED--Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't misunderstand you at all. I just don't agree with you ("Not all managers and even CEOs of notable companies are themselves notable"; I agree that not all managers are notable by a long shot, but CEOs are, and a managing director is a CEO, of course). And I was pointing out that we have countless articles on people who are only notable because of their families. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he is CEO of this company as per the organigram of the company here. [23]. The CEO is a chap called Captain Leslie Reis and despite what you suggest I don't think all CEOs are notable as far as I can see unless there are notability guidelines that I have missed, could you point me to them please. Have you had a chance to look at the sources BTW? --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW when I said "Not all managers and even CEOs of notable companies are themselves notable" I was paraphrasing WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME which says:

Presidents, chef executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable.
Biographical material on heads and key figures of smaller companies which are themselves the subject of Wikipedia articles are sometimes merged into those articles and the biographies redirected to the company.

--Dom from Paris (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources are more or less WP:PROMO, except for possibly [24] which reads like it came from a press release. I'm not even sure the business he leads (Transworld Group (Shipping and Logistic company)) is notable. That article has serious issues. I submitted it for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transworld_Group_(Shipping_and_Logistic_company). I am also wondering if the chairman needs to go to AfD as well: Ramesh_Ramakrishnan. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.∯WBG^converse 09:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshihiko Kikuchi[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 limited to name checks and very short passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. Primary sources and unreliable sources found in various WP:BEFORE searches are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly WP:PROMO, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Notability has not been shown. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AuthorAuthor, would you be willing to revisit this, in light of sources brought below. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kikuchi rates mention in The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint Church History, which is seletive in only including articles on General Authorities the editors felt were important enough to cover, it does not include articles on all general authorities. The Mauss and Bringhurst sources add two scholarly sources that mention Kikuchi. This link to a Dialogue entry [25] shows statements by Kikuchi being engaged with in a scholarly, indepdent setting. Lengthen TYour Stride makes multiple mentions of Kikuchi [26] providing contextualized analysis of his call as a general authority. He also is mentioned in R. Lanier Britsch's history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Asia, although I could not say how substantially. He gets mention here [27] in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint history: The Pacific Isles, edited by Reid L. Neilson, a very respected historian, although it is not a long mention. On the whole this adds up to notability, and I am not convined that we would not find more if we had adequate access to 1970s newspapers from the time of his call as a general authority.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. Primary sources such as these do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how primary source is defined. You confuse publication with creation issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a tax-exempt religious organization, the LDS Church avoids directly owning for-profit ventures, because this would threaten its tax-exempt status, so it uses the church-owned Deseret Management Corporation as a holding and management company to own and manage for-profit ventures, one of which is the Deseret Book Company, which publishes the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History. It's all highly interrelated with the LDS Church, making it a primary source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, several university press books by notable scholars discuss his role in the Church, and the fact that he is the first native Asian to be called as a general authority of the LDS Church:

Armand Mauss, All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, 2010, University of Illinois Press
Newell G. Bringhurst, Darron Smith, co-editors Black and Mormon, 2005, University of Illinois Press.
Reid L. Neilson, Taking the Gospel to the Japanese, 1901-2001, 2010, University of Utah Press, where he is quoted or discussed on pp. 327, 352, 353, 354, 358, 373, & 375.

More sclolarly sourcing appears to be available in gScholar with keywords (there is a notable scientist with the same name.) I searched ""Yoshihiko Kikuchi" + LDS [28], but there are probably better keywords to use. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

for example, Numano, Jiro. “Hasty Baptisms in Japan: The Early 1980s in the LDS Church.” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 36, no. 4, 2010, pp. 18–40. JSTOR, JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/23291122]. is a close examination of Kikuchi's leadership in Japan, it is highly critical of what Numano describes as a competition among regions to win converted, which Nuamo describes as having negative consequences. I do not pretend to have read all of these books, and I red only some of this article. But it sure looks to me as though subject meets WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Neilson reference looks odd. I think it's the title from the BYU Press 2006 edited volume but the publication info from Early Mormon Missionary Activities in Japan, 1901-1924 (which is unlikely to have Kikuchi information in it). If the reference is to the former, then there's a good chance those pages are the part written by Terry Nelson, who did an MA thesis on the church in Japan: [29] Bakazaka (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets WP:GNG. I have added text, sourced to the Numano article cited above, that provides another perspective and helps offset the hagiographic tendencies inherent in relying on church sources to write an article about a church leader. Bakazaka (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at the sources, the Journal of Mormon History has had very limited distribution, thus a limited readership, according to World Cat here and here. An LDS member making good within the church, then being mentioned in a church history book and a Mormon encyclopedia, plus a 2-sentence mention on a page in Black and Mormon, a 184-page book, do not add up in establishing notability. Here is the actual mention in Black and Mormon: "The official church auspices were indicated by the keynote speaker, Elder Yoshihiko Kikuchi of the Seventy, a Japanese national. Incongruous as that may seem in a black LDS American gathering, Elder Kikuchi's remarks were very well received as sensitive and supportive." I reiterate: It continues to fail WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –Thus far, only the Numano source, which I cannot access, appears to be usable to demonstrate notability. However, multiple independent sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Below is a review of sources presented in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Analysis
Armand Mauss, All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, 2010, University of Illinois Press	Not WP:SIGCOV: has one single, six-word sentence about the subject. This is not significant coverage whatsoever.
Newell G. Bringhurst, Darron Smith, co-editors Black and Mormon, 2005, University of Illinois Press.	Not WP:SIGCOV: Per AuthorAuthor's description above; a 2-sentence mention
Reid L. Neilson, Taking the Gospel to the Japanese, 1901-2001, 2010, Brigham Young University Press	Primary source: According to WorldCat (here), this is not published by the University of Utah Press as stated above in the discussion. Rather, it is published by Brigham Young University Press, which is the university press of Brigham Young University. Brigham Young University is wholly owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Numano, Jiro. “Hasty Baptisms in Japan: The Early 1980s in the LDS Church.” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 36, no. 4, 2010, pp. 18–40. JSTOR, JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/23291122].	I cannot access this source to assess the depth of coverage
[30]	Not WP:SIGCOV: Per the snippet view, this comes across as very likely only consisting of fleeting passing mentions
[31]	Not WP:SIGCOV: A passing mention
The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint Church History	I consider this to be a primary source, per my analysis above in the discussion.

Comment excluding BYU Press books from being reliable sources because of the ownership of the university ignores the fact that BYU press seeks to be a reliable scholarly publication and publish scholarly works. Its ownership structure does not disqualify it from being a signifcant reliable secondary source any more than the ownership structure of Catholic University of America or the University of Notre Dame disqualifies all publications of their university presses from being reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - besides the Deseret story about the temple in Japan, where Kikuchi's birthplace is mentioned, there's virtually no biographical coverage of him in current or a Google search that I can find. I did find a lawsuit against the church that he was part of, albeit in a minor role. [[32]] Most of the background info in the article now is unsourced or stems from a primary source (a dead link interview podcast). If there was some accepted policy that says a general authority is automatically notable, like a top league sports player, that would be a different story. The general authority article itself a bit weak on sourcing, using many primary sources, with the Mormon Encyclopedia also doing heavy sourcing duty. Unless consensus is that being general authority itself is enough for a notability pass, this has to be a delete based on WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the University of Tokyo Press a RS for books about the government of Japan? What about Manchester University Press? It is housed within the university (always in one of the university's treasured, historic buildings,) it is "a department of the University of Manchester", all decisions "must be approved by the Editorial Committee, which is composed of academics based at the University of Manchester.". The Univerisity of Manchester is a public university. Is it a reliable source for books about British politicians? The British government? British political history? to me, it looks as though editors are setting up standards for the Mormon Church that are not applied by Wikipedia for books about other institutions published by university presses that those institutions control.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One easy test of independence is whether or not the press publishes books that are critical of the parent organization. I would expect to see books from the presses you name that are critical of the government or of politicians. So a question (probably for RS Talk rather than an AfD on one person) is whether or not BYU Press or Deseret or whatever publishes books that are critical of the church. Bakazaka (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. (not to mention highly subjective. Look at WP:IIS, which states, "Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (... the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." By our own standards, if we rule that books by Brigham Young University Press cannot be used as sources for LDS-relate dtopice, we must also rule that no book by Manchester University Press can be used to source books on the government of the U.K. , and similarly with all other University Presses with financial or legal relationships to government sponsored universities. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have taken this discussion to WP:RSN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 9 November 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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Ward Smith[edit]

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

The subject is, I believe, Usenet-famous, and the article was created in 2006 when that might have been enough, but he is not actually notable by our current standards (neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG and neither for his mathematics research nor for his work on musical tuning systems). In this, I believe I am in agreement with Galassi (talk · contribs), but rather than properly testing notability by an AfD Galassi has instead been attempting to make a permanent shrine to Smith's non-notability by stripping all sources and details from the article and then sticking as many cleanup banners as possible into the corpse that remains. I think we're better off just deleting it, and that the sources we have are not in-depth enough to prove notability, but it would be a mistake to judge this by looking at the stripped-down version of the article as left by Galassi. Instead, the version that we should be judging is this one, before Galassi started stripping it and attaching bogus COI banners to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete for reasons pretty much spelled out in the nomination. That said, the stripping-out of content was not helpful, and the edit summaries were misleading. The sources removed in this edit do not mention Smith "only in footnotes", and the one removed here mentions more than "conversations". That source actually says the following:

Though we had worked out many of its details before his appearance in the community, special thanks goes to Gene Ward Smith for applying modern mathematics (namely, the field of Grassmann, or exterior, or multilinear, algebra) to this subject, placing it on a firmer foundation and allowing for many problems to be solved and new results to be obtained.

This edit removed a "dead" link without checking to see if there was a live version. The edit summary also says that the source provides "no notability proof", which is true, but not every source in a biography has to go to proving the subject's wiki-notability: some of them are there to provide details about the subject's work. In this case, the reference was a primary source in a context where that would be unobjectionable (were the subject wiki-notable). Similarly, this edit removed material because it was cited to "usenet refs", when the sources were actually OEIS entries and a collection of Usenet posts gathered together by a mathematician who judged them worth saving. Not great sources, but not as worthless as random posts on a random message board, either. This edit removed content on the grounds that there was "no mention of any Smith" on the cited page, but a page one click away mentions a Gene Smith, who sure looks to be the same Gene Smith. Having gone through all this, I'm still not quite seeing a pass of WP:PROF, but the spurious removal of content made that evaluation significantly more of a hassle than it should have been. XOR'easter (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He appears to have been friends with Steven Spielberg in high school as described in this book (which is clearly a reliable source). Also, the subject of this article has a Wikipedia account (though he has not edited here at all in almost two years); this may have been related to the COI tags mentioned above. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the editor who placed the tag, that's not why. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Special thanks" definitely fails any notability guideline.--Galassi (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete for reasons above. There is virtually nothing about Smith on the web, never mind any testimonial of notability.--Galassi (talk) 14:00, 4 November 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 clear that an article on a toddler artist can not be supported by the quality of sources proposed to support this article. bd2412 T 04:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Aelita Andre[edit]

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

Article on an 11-year old artist. Most of the coverage centres around her work as a four-year old artist. I'll admit that I am nominating this because I do not think we should be publishing articles about the accomplishments of four year olds-- that business should be left to garbage tabloids. (There might be a fundamental argument to be made here: two to four year olds are generally not notable for what they do in life.) That said, there is coverage, but it all revolves around her work as a two to four year old, and I am going to say that is BLP1E or similar as a nomination rationale. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was surprised, but this is not a single event. Subject is in very easy to find reliable secondary sources in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and at least as recently as May 2018, and about her ongoing work. Not sure how much WP:BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure what age has to do with it. If a 74 year old had taken up painting for the first time at 70 and had received the same degree of coverage in reliable secondary sources, and recognition, for whatever reason, then there would be no issue with notability? Aoziwe (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False comparison. a 74 year old has a lot of experience, and presumably an education. A two to four year old mostly walks, giggles, laughs, cries, throws temper tantrums, has no formal education and a limited command of language. This story of childhood artistic genius has been often repeated, and it's usually the parents doing the work. It's just silly to think a four year old makes notable art. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it does not matter what we think (WP:POV / WP:IDONTLIKEIT ). We are governed by what is available in reliable secondary sources, and it looks like this one easily gets over the line. Mozart was five? Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has not been substantially updated since the subject was four years old, but a simple Google search yields numerous recent results in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, as noted by Aoziwe. WP:BEFORE sections C and D should have been consulted prior to this nomination. The article can and should be expanded. Armadillopteryx^talk 03:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for administrator: Armadillopteryx was the creator of this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we should exercise extreme caution in creating articles on minors and this article is not justified at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability rather than age is the policy-driven metric for a subject's inclusion on Wikipedia. As the subject is notable per numerous secondary sources and no BLP guidelines have been violated, I don't see a substantive argument for deletion here. Armadillopteryx^talk 22:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to BLP concerns. If there isn't a rule against this there should be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What BLP concerns? Armadillopteryx^talk 04:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the first page of Google hits on the subject:
- 2014 article in The Atlantic
- 2015 article in People
- 2016 article by ABC News
- 2017 article by SBS Australia
- 2017 article in South China Morning Post

Certainly not a BLP1E. Armadillopteryx^talk 05:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should be deleted for WP:BLP issues (not explicit violations but the spirit of these guidelines) because its subject is a young child. We shouldn't be publishing such information about relatively obscure children such as her or arguably help parents exploit their own kids. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:2007 births, Category:2008 births, Category:2009 births, etc. for several dozen articles on people at least as young as this subject (who is hardly obscure per substantial coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources like those above).

I can't help but notice that all keep votes in this discussion are based on policy, while all delete votes (and the nomination itself) are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If one's argument is that the article has BLP issues, those issues should be indicated explicitly—otherwise, how can we discuss them? Armadillopteryx^talk 09:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against art or artists (and I don't think that the other delete voters do either). This article is exploitative in nature towards a young child for financial gain for the parents and just because a handful of other articles might have similar issues doesn't mean two wrongs suddenly make a right. It violates the spirit of WP:BLP, if not presently the letter. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think my main issue with this is that statements like This article is exploitative in nature towards a young child for financial gain for the parents are purely WP:POV—and those are not the sort of sentiments around which we build an encyclopedia. It does not strike me as true that this article is exploitative, and such has certainly not been demonstrated with evidence. It seems problematic to use that assertion as an assumption on which to base an argument. Armadillopteryx^talk 10:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article exalts the child's art skills and reputation, and has multiple links to the "childs" personal website where you can buy "their" work for a hefty price. It's a well known issue that people or others on their behalf create Wikipedia pages about themselves to build personal brands or to market products/companies. Do you think that young child ever consented to creating that website hawking "her" products or this article, which have both existed since she was no older then four years old? By the way, I checked and indeed this article has been linked to "her" website which hawks "her" merchandise since the very day you created this article in 2011. I am not accusing you of wrongdoing, I am just pointing out it has always been child exploitation. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that when organisations like the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who regulary and frequently win awards for the standard of their journalism, screen programs like this as per this and this that the likelihood of culpable exploitation is minimal, as too is the "parents doing the work". (I have not seen the series though.) If there is any exploitation or parent cheating then why not provide the reliable secondary reference for it and put that appropriately in the article. Aoziwe (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS With this level and type of already national public profile, apparently with full cooperation, I am not aware of what the BLP concerns might be? Aoziwe (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article, since the day it was created in 2011 (she was only four years old), has been linked to the "child's" personal website which hawks "her" expensive merchandise and she's been "personally" raking in countless thousands of dollars for since she was in diapers. You don't see any child exploitation red flags with that? On a different note, I have seen such a special (don't remember if it was the same one - it was something I saw in an art class years ago) about this girl and it noted there were plenty of critics about who was actually making the work. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it common (borderline default) practice to link an artist's/musician's/etc. official website in the infobox and external links section? I'm the one who put it there, and for no other reason than that that is my understanding of how to create an article on a subject like this. If that's where the exploitation concern arises for you, why not just propose removing that link? And, yes, like all artists, she receives criticism of her work—and that is discussed in the article. Armadillopteryx^talk 11:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article fundamentally violates the spirit of WP:BLP and normal artistic criticism is not the same thing as obvious child exploitation and accusations of using a toddler still in diapers to push your own work onto the market as hers. Few know this, but the original Winnie the Pooh series in real life was a terrible form of child exploitation of an innocent little boy by his parents for their own enrichment, and it greatly damaged him as a person. I hope this kid fares better. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that exploiting a child for any reason is a horrible thing to do. But I frankly see no reason why having a Wikipedia article about this subject—about whom many articles in high-profile news sources exist and continue to be produced—is exploitative. This person has received and continues to receive significant coverage for her work (regardless of what anyone thinks about it), the article is written in NPOV based on that coverage, and it could easily be expanded with new sources. Sure, some parents exploit their children, but I fail to see how this article does anything remotely like that. Armadillopteryx^talk 12:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I see this article as a furtherance and promotion of her parents' exploitation and we will have to agree to disagree about its place on Wikipedia. Thank you for keeping the debate civil on this contentious topic. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Always nice to explore disagreements calmly, as here. Armadillopteryx^talk 13:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP violation, she is 11 and couldn't manage a "career" as outlined in this article or reasonably give permission for personal information of this kind to be divulged in a public article. Szzuk (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria for Wikipedia articles are not based on direct permission from the subject; that treads heavily into WP:COI territory. Inclusion criteria are based on WP:NOTABILITY and coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources, which this subject clearly passes. Doesn't matter how old she is; doesn't matter why she has received this large amount of public coverage; doesn't matter what we as editors opine about the legitimacy of her career. There is a substantive collection of news articles about her spanning at least the period from 2009 to 2018, which means she meets our guidelines.

Which category of BLP violation do you propose she is 11 and couldn't manage a "career" as outlined in this article or reasonably give permission for personal information of this kind to be divulged falls under? Armadillopteryx^talk 15:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It fails so much at WP:BLP its not worth discussing. Szzuk (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a non-answer that does not give reason to believe you can actually point out a specific BLP claim. Labeling one's position a BLP concern and then providing a strictly WP:IDONTLIKEIT justification strikes me as either confused or disingenuous. I could be wrong, but that's all I've seen from delete arguments here. Armadillopteryx^talk 16:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not terribly impressed by the level of WP:PAG based arguments here. That said we are getting close to a viable consensus to delete. Hopefully another week of discussion will add some clarity one way or another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure there are WP:PAG arguments to delete; my vote is a combination of the principles behind WP:BLP and WP:IAR. No minor whose notability rests entirely on making paintings between the ages of 2 and 4 should be notable, even if the "has been mentioned in 2 newspapers" threshold is met. The more recent coverage is largely "this local teenager was doing art at the age of 4". power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reread the article, carefully I hope, and I am struggling to see how it violates any BLP principles. As far as I can tell it is not invasive, it is not titillating, it is not solacious, it does not reveal any personal details that are not aleady very readily available in multiple places. I do not see how it supports commercial interests any more than we allow for any other creative person. I do not see how it encourages exploitation of children. (While I have been around wikipedia for a while, I am still learning my way so am happy for anyone to offer advice either on talk here or on my talk if they wish to.) We in wikipedia cannot promote anyone. We are fully dependent on them being already noted in independent reliable sources (IRS). I too struggle with the concept of a 22 month old producing their own art work. But as stated, we are relient on what the IRS tell us. However, I have also read in detail a selection of sources quoted in the article, and I believe I can safely say that the current articles does NOT fully represent a balanced view of art critique stated in those articles, and hence the current article fails WP:NPOV. While I still believe the subject is notable, and does not violate BLP, it does need some work to fix NPOV, but this can be readily done from sources already listed. Aoziwe (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I largely second Aoziwe's comment. ThatMontrealIP and I have made some cursory edits to the article to remove prose that sounded POV. This was the first article I created as a new editor, and re-reading it now, I see I mimicked the laudatory tone of some of the sources in a way that I have since learned to notice and avoid. I think that the article can readily be expanded with balanced critique and other material that has been published since 2011. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Sources (ordered chronologically)
1. Malkin, Bonnie (2009-01-06). "Art gallery fooled into showing work of a two-year-old". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
2. Kermond, Clare (2009-01-08). "The curious case of Aelita Andre, artist, aged 2". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
3. "Gallery discovers art was painted by a two-year-old girl". Belfast Telegraph. 2009-01-09. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
4. Lahey, Kate (2009-01-11). "Little painter, big sales". The Age. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
5. Greer, Germaine (2009-01-26). "Would you pay $3,000 for a painting by a toddler? That's what they're charging in Melbourne". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
6. "KunstAelita Andre: Malendes Wunderkind in Windeln". Focus (in German). Deutsche Presse-Agentur. 2009-03-08. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
7. Thomas, Michelle; Fahmy, Miral (2009-03-25). Tait, Paul (ed.). "Prodigy or pressured? Aussie toddler's art on show". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
8. Quinn, Karl (2010-04-18). "Pee-wee Picasso masters Midas touch". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
9. Flock, Elizabeth (2011-05-24). "Aelita Andre, four-year-old prodigy painter". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
10. Pisa, Pier Luigi, ed. (2011-05-26). "Aelita, la pittrice professionista più piccola: ha 4 anni". la Repubblica (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
11. "Una niña de cuatro años australiana triunfa como pintora" (in Spanish). Antena 3. 2011-05-27. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
12. Hamilton, Brad (2011-06-04). "4-year-old artist making splash in city". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
13. "Four-year-old artist's NY exhibition". BBC Online. 2011-06-05. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
14. Cheng, Pei-Sze (2011-06-06). "4-Year-Old Girl Takes NYC Art World By Storm". WNBC. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
15. Haines, Gemma (2011-06-06). "Four-year-old takes art world by storm". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
16. Hutchison, Geoff (2011-06-07). "Aelita Andre: A toddler Picasso or a kid waving a paintbrush?". ABC Radio Perth. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
17. "7000 euros pour le tableau d'une fillette de 4 ans". L'Express (in French). 2011-06-07. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
18. "US 4 Year Old Art Prodigy". Associated Press Television News. 2011-06-10. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
19. Horowitz, Noah (2011-06-11). "Your 4-Year-Old Can't Do That". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
20. Parker, Mike (2011-06-12). "Tot Modern!". Daily Express. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
21. Güner, Şule (2011-08-22). "Soyut resmin minik dehası". Sabah (in Turkish). Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
22. Kampmark, Binoy (2011-08-31). "The Desire to Be Tricked: Aelita Andre and the Art World". Scoop. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
23. D'Agata, Charlie; Jarvis, Rebecca; Glor, Jeff (2012-05-12). "Controversy over five-year-old art prodigy". CBS. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
24. "Five-year-old girl unveils new art exhibition in New York". The Daily Telegraph. 2012-06-14. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
25. Grove, Ánxel (2012-06-14). "Vuelve a exponer en una galería de arte moderno la niña de 5 años que vende cuadros a 8.000 euros". 20 minutos (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
26. Joyner, Alfred (2012-06-15). "Five year old artist displays work in New York". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
27. "Aelita Andre, una pequeña gran artista. Una joven de cino años expone en solitario en la prestigiosa Agora Gallery neoyorquina". ABC (in Spanish). 2012-06-15. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
28. "Una niña prodigio de 5 años expone obras valoradas en 13.000 dólares" (in Spanish). RT. 2012-06-16. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
29. Bost, Callie (2012-06-18). "Meet The 5-Year-Old Artist From Australia Who Just Opened Her Own Gallery Show In Chelsea". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
30. "2014 AHAF：國際天才抽象派畫家Aelita Andre". Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2014-03-15. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
31. LaSane, Andrew (2014-11-04). "7-Year-Old Artist Aelita Andre Critiques Banksy, Pollock, and Koons at Her Art Exhibition in New York City". Complex. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
32. Jones, Justin (2014-11-05). "The Tiniest Jackson Pollock: Aelita Andre has just wrapped up another major show of her abstract paintings and given interviews on her latest inspirations. And she's just 7 years old". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
33. Urist, Jacoba (2014-11-07). "What Makes a Child an Art Prodigy? The paintings of seven-year-old Aelita Andre have sold for tens of thousands of dollars, raising the question of what separates true, precocious genius from mere youthful creativity with hype". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
34. Jones, Justin (2014-11-07). "Blessed or Cursed? Child Prodigies Reveal All". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
35. Dorrego, Daniela (2014-11-20). "Aelita Andre: La niña de 7 años que sorprende con exitosas pinturas y exposiciones". es:Bío-Bío Chile TV (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
36. "「最年輕的畢卡索」女神童7歲了　抽象畫能賣150萬". zh:ETtoday新聞雲 (in Chinese). 2014-11-10. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
37. "Obra de niña pintora de 8 años se vende a $50,000". El Nuevo Día (in Spanish). 2015-03-09. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
38. Heigl, Alex (2015-03-09). "8-Year-Old Painter's Works Sell for Up to $50K". People. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
39. Wood, Jennifer (2015-04-07). "The 20 Best Artists Under 20 Right Now". Complex. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
40. Fiorentino, Flavia (2015-06-27). "La pittrice prodigio di 8 anni Aelita Andre dipinge una tela al Pitti Bimbo per Original Marines". Corriere della Sera (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
41. "Performance dell'artista prodigio Aelita Andre a Chianciano Terme". it:Il Cittadino (quotidiano di Lodi) (in Italian). 2015-09-11. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
42. Karpova, Marina (2015-11-12). "8-year-old Aussie with Russian roots becomes global art sensation". Russia Beyond. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
43. Rivera, Adam (2016-09-27). "Aelita Andre, 9-Year-Old Abstract Painter Opens Solo Show in Famed Russian Museum". ABC News. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
44. Đạt, Hữu (2016-10-19). "Cô bé 9 tuổi vẽ tranh bán được tiền tỉ". Thanh Niên. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
45. 陳添浚 (2017-02-28). "抽象表現主義天才畫家Aelita Andre詮釋大自然的神秘魅力". Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
46. Blundy, Rachel (2017-04-15). "Painting before she could walk, 10-year-old Australian abstract artist Aelita Andre has fans all over the world. Aged four, she opened first solo exhibition in New York City and was the youngest artist to stage a solo show in Russian Academy of Fine Arts Museum". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
47. Samios, Zoe (2017-07-23). "Skoda aligns brand with 10-year-old Australian artist in new ad". Mumbrella. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
48. Klepova, Olga (2017-12-03). "10-year-old art prodigy: 'I was 9 months old when I first touched the paint and never stopped since'". Special Broadcasting Service. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
49. Cox, Will (2017-12-06). "Aelita Andre's Infinite Universe: Aelita Andre paints huge, ecstatic abstract canvases. And she's 10". Broadsheet. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
50. Agbo, Njideka (2017-12-13). "Adults Alert! These Under 15s Are Setting The Pace". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
51. Châu, Minh (2018-01-10). "Những thần đồng tài không đợi tuổi". vi:24h (trang web) (in Vietnamese). Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
52. "Making Child Prodigies: Meet the 11-year-old who sells paintings for $50,000". ABC News and Current Affairs. 2018-05-30. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
53. Barkhausen, Barbara (2018-09-25). "Kunstgenie in Kinderschuhen". Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aelita Andre to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject is also covered in books (primarily books aimed towards children):
1. Paris, David (2017). Fantastic Kids: Young Artists. Huntington Beach, California: Teacher Created Materials. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-4258-4982-5. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
  https://www.amazon.com/Fantastic-Young-Artists-Nonfiction-Readers/dp/1425849822 says: "With TIME For Kids content, this book aligns with national and state standards and will keep grade 4 students engaged in learning."The book notes:
  Abstract Aelita
  Aelita Andre (ey-LEE-tuh AHN-drey) is a young abstract artist from Australia. When she was two years old, her paintings were in an art show. People who saw her paintings did not realize she was so young. They were very impressed by her art. By the time she was four, her paintings often sold for as much as $10,000 each.
  Aelita likes to add objects to her paintings. She has added feathers, plastic figures, or masks to some of her artwork. She has even added glitter.
2. Rhatigan, Joe (2013). People You Gotta Meet Before You Grow Up: Get to Know the Movers and Shakers, Heroes and Hotshots in Your Hometown. Waterbrown, Massachusetts: Charlesbridge Publishing. ISBN 978-1-62354-004-3. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
  The book notes:
  
  Fun Fact
  The youngest internationally recognized painter in the world is six-year-old Aelita Andre. Aelita lives in Australia and has been painting since she was two.
  Her work has sold for thousands of dollars, and her shows regularly sell out. Check her out at www.aelitaandre.com.
3. Doff, Adrian; Thaine, Craig; Puchta, Herbert; Stranks, Jeff; Lewis-Jones, Peter (2015). Cambridge English Empower Intermediate Student's Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-1-107-46684-5. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
  The book notes:
  
  Underline the correct words (Ø means "zero article").
  The colourful world of Aelita Andre
  Aelita Andre is a six-year-old artist from Melbourne, Australia. She loves colours, and her paintings are bright and wild. She sometimes adds small toys to her pictures, such as plastic dinosaurs and butterflies.
  The young painter has already earned more than £100,000, and people have described her as "the youngest professional artist in the world". When Aelita was five, her work was on show in an art gallery in New York.
  Aelita's mother says, "You know how young children paint for a few minutes and then lose interest? When Aelita was two, she often painted for an hour without stopping."
4. Saatchi, Charles (2012). Babble. London: Booth-Clibborn Edition. p. 253. ISBN 978-1-86154-351-6. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
  The book notes:
  
  Many artists have to wait until they are dead or very old to be appreciated. Not Aelita Andre who in 2011 had her very own solo exhibition at the Agora Gallery in Soho, New York at the age of four. Some of her paintings in the show sold of $27,000.
Cunard (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources:
- The sources span from January 2009 to September 2018.
- The sources are from 15 countries.
  - Australia: ABC News and Current Affairs, ABC Radio Perth, The Age, Broadsheet, Mumbrella, Special Broadcasting Service, and The Sydney Morning Herald
  - Chile: es:Bío-Bío Chile TV
  - Hong Kong: South China Morning Post and Wen Wei Po
  - Italy: it:Il Cittadino (quotidiano di Lodi), Corriere della Sera, and la Repubblica
  - France: L'Express
  - Germany: Deutsche Presse-Agentur and Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung
  - New Zealand: Scoop
  - Nigeria: The Guardian
  - Russia: Russia Beyond and RT
  - Spain: 20 minutos, ABC, Antena 3
  - Taiwan: zh:ETtoday新聞雲
  - Turkey: Sabah
  - United Kingdom: Belfast Telegraph, BBC Online, Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph, and The Guardian
  - United States: ABC News, Associated Press Television News, The Atlantic, CBS, Business Insider, Complex, The Daily Beast, El Nuevo Día, International Business Times, New York Post, The New York Times, People, Reuters, The Washington Post, and WNBC
  - Vietnam: vi:24h (trang web) and Thanh Niên
- The subject has been covered in books (primarily for children).
The subject cannot be considered low-profile because she has received persistent coverage in over 50 sources in 15 countries over a nearly ten-year period.
At 11 years old, Aelita Andre is a minor. I read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and did not find any reason in the policy that would justify deleting this article either because she is a minor or because of some other reason. There is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People who are relatively unknown, but Aelita Andre is not relatively unknown.
Cunard (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no doubt that through the efforts of Aelita's parents, she received media attention in 2009 and 2011. This individual and situation falls under several policies that when considered in conjunction with one another, provides an argument that the community must make a decision based upon not only PAG reasons but an additional moral and ethical responsibility when relating to children. In particular, looking at WP:BLP1E, WP:LASTING, and WP:SUSTAINED. In the 7 years since, she has not received any further significant attention with respect to recent work clearly suggesting little historical importance beyond the events of 2009 and 2011.

If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. -WP:SUSTAINED

One or two events is contemplated in BLP when considering whether an article may harm an individual. In 2009 and 2011, Aelita was aged 2 and 4 respectively. We must take this under consideration when examining the need for privacy, something central to BLP. Finally, if you read the lead section of WP:BLP, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Reading the New York Times and TIME comments about her artwork provide enough reasons as to why we need to do the right thing here and delete the article and content about a two and four year old. Mkdw ^talk 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially tabloid material , not encyclopedic material. There's been a number of WP articles on young people with accomplishments that would be non notable if they were not young and good looking -- typically high school age or undergraduates who happened to be working in a lab from which a moderately important paper was published. From a newspaper feature editor's point of view, they make for good articles. Extending this to yet earlier ages for accomplishments not notable if they were not so young/ I remind everyone that a prodigy is someone who performs on the same level as an adult professional, not just one who performs better than expected for their age. . The best of the many possible WP rules that can be used to remove an article like this is NOT PROMOTION. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 6 November 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. Closing this as keep rather than NC because the nominating statement doesn't provide any policy-based reasons for deletion. There's no indication that WP:BEFORE was performed, and most of the complaint is about another editor without addressing any inherent notability issues of the subject itself. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India's Next Top Model (season 4)[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate this show meets notability requirements. Article creator repeatedly adds unsourced minutia and refuses to add sources when requested. Ravensfire (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cycle is in progress and I'm not seeing issues that aren't dealt with through common warning and reverting or as has already been done, semi-protection. Also, the 'article creator' hasn't edited the article at all since creating it and I'm seeing nothing at all suggesting any sign of socking by them, nor any reach-out to them besides templating this nomination their way. Also, you can add sources yourself, so I don't know why you haven't done so rather than just reverting these contribs with a brusque 'come back when you have a source'. WP:AGF is needed, not deletion. Nate • (chatter) 14:27, 29 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. I would be happy to refund this to the userspace of anyone who wants to develop material towards a merger. Vanamonde (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Candace Whittemore Lovely exhibitions[edit]

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

List of exhibitions. Wikipedia is not a place to post one's resume or CV. The only references are press releases and a permanent dead link (not archived). Vexations (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limited merge. A few of the more significant exhibitions can be included in the main article but this great big list has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have suggestions as to which notable exhibitions (with citations) might be included? Vexations (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of information it is hard to know which of the exhibitions are most notable without a lot of research. My thought would be to exclude all but the solo exhibitions and then to exclude all the remaining entries where the venue does not have an article. That would leave a list of solo exhibitions at notable galleries. Those would be candidates for mentioning in the main article. Find an independent review of such an exhibition in a reliable source and I'd call it a good candidate for inclusion. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Limited merge a few items might be transferred to her puffed-up article, but this CV style list has to go.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTRESUME. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTIINFO, WP:NOTRESUME. Note that Candace Whittemore Lovely is under-sourced PROMO for this decidedly minor, marginally notable, artist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 5 November 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. Mkdw ^talk 18:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranorex GmbH[edit]

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

I turned this version of the page into a redirect because of poor sources that fail WP:CORPDEPTH, with the main source a pamphlet promoting Graz as a place of business. There's no indication that the company meets WP:CORP. The decision has been challenged on the talk page. The additional sources presented there are "market analysis reports" of $1,995 to $3,999 per piece, one of which doesn't seem to exist and another of which I doubt is reliable, leaving us with a Gartner report that apparently exists and discusses Ranorex in some detail (though it's unclear what it says; I don't have access). One good source is not enough to establish notability. Bringing it here for a discussion per WP:BLAR: Redirect to Ranorex Studio (unless that is also found to not be notable, in which case both should be deleted, but that's another issue). Huon (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The gutting of the article by removing "lots of unreliably sourced, promotional content" was fine. What was left is enough for the company to meet WP:GNG. I reverted to the previous state (with the poor sources) for now, but I could see the article go back to the state listed above. Ultimately, the article should be expanded to discuss the company's products and anything else that can be reliably sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to work to improve the article and sources, subject to COI editor guidelines. Jaking01 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of analyst reports including from Gartner and Forrester meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I don't see Forrester cited in the article. Would you mind improving the page by summarizing what Forrester says about the company? Huon (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, it is probably better for subject-matter experts to add this type of material to the article. I simply applied the criteria for establishing notability - two sources required. Since two analyst reports from two different analyst firms are available, this topic meets the criteria. It is not appropriate for post analyst reports here but my Google searching has turned up more than enough. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I have to disagree: The Forrester report mostly is a review of one specific product and thus could be used as a source for the article on that product, but doesn't provide much, if anything, about the company beyond the fact that they got bought, routine coverage that does not help establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Does the Gartner report have anything more substantial about the company? I don't have access to that one. Huon (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon Perhaps you're reading a different report? The one I have is entitled "The Forrester Wave™: Omnichannel Functional Test Automation Tools, Q3 2018, The 15 Providers That Matter Most And How They Stack Up". 24 pages long and each vendor gets approx 25%-33% of a page. It isn't routine. It is significant and independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: It's a review of one specific product - the product, not the vendor, gets much of that third of a page. For some vendors, eg Microsoft, there's a little about company strategy and how that impacts the product, but not for Ranorex (beyond "they got bought" and some speculation about a possible future). I summarized here what it says about Ranorex Studio. What does it say about the company itself? I didn't see anything relevant. You're welcome to edit the company article and improve it, but I couldn't find anything useful in the report. As an aside, "independent" is debatable since Forrester apparently only contacts customers that have been proposed by the vendor, but that's not relevant here since even then too few Ranorex customers replied for Forrester to say anything about their reaction. Huon (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Idera Software, they recently bought it up. Szzuk (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 29 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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Oster[edit]

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

Somewhat procedural nom on behalf of a (now-blocked) IP; I don't see a case for notability here. A lot of references, but to Tumblr and Wordpress. All albums are published by "Retso Music" which appears to be his own vanity label, and none of the awards appear to have Wikipedia articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look like the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. The sources provided are almost all self-published, and I didn't see significant reliable source coverage of the subject in my search. The awards listed don't seem to be particularly notable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over-sourced fails WP:SIGCOV.Because page lists recordings form 2004-5, I searched aProquest news archive, but found only several other Jeffs Oster. Nothing useful on gNews. Went to subject's website, "Press" page - 3 articles written by Oster, none about him. Fails WP:MUSICBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 5 November 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.