Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 August	2 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People United Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment Added find sources AFD template for Spanish name. Bakazaka (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Look to adding this recent notice by a legal foundation in support of Pueblos Unidos Center's efforts, as also this report of the Center's legal actions, by an independent source, and this notice from Europa Press. Jzsj (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "recent notice by a legal foundation" is actually just an event announcement, not an endorsement of any kind. it's publicity for an event.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read on and you'll see the credit that is given (in their bold letters: "This guide is the result of the Foundation's network work with the Pueblos Unidos Center of the San Juan del Castillo Foundation and Pro Bono lawyers,..."). Jzsj (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS, as it is very clear that you do not understand what a reliable source is in this context. An event listing that talks about a publication being launched is not a reliable source. The source in question is reliable support for a claim that the event happened, and that the Jesuits have published a certain book. It lends no notability to the organization itself. While the source includes "Pueblos Unidos Center of the San Juan del Castillo Foundation and Pro Bono lawyers" in a few sentences, it does nothing to establish that the org is notable, as it goes into no depth at all about the org. It is an event listing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:RS do you find comes closest to supporting what you say here? Are you speaking of reliability or notability, since WP:RS never uses you word "depth" and is not a discussion of "notability"? Jzsj (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. (from Wikipedia:Notability). See also Wikipedia:Verifiability for the demands for proper sourcing. And from WP:RS: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The Banner talk 11:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look again at the excerpt and see that others will disagree on whether it fails the criteria you mention here. The mention hardly seems trivial and the source seems reliable. Jzsj (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you really unable to understand the meaning of these policies? The Banner talk 15:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Drmies:. Are Banner and I wrong about this?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can tell. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No reliable independent source that discusses the topic significantly.Mere name-mentions aren't sufficient.∯WBG^converse 11:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search does not find enough material in independent reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Bakazaka (talk) 19:37, 7 September 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Brown (internet musician)[edit]

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

Totality of independent coverage for this YouTuber appears to consist of one third of a Vanity Fair article. Does not meet any applicable notability guidelines. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Boyinaband article has been on my todo list for a while now, and I think there's plenty of independent coverage of him out there, for example, [1] [2] and [3]. I agree that David Brown (internet musician) as it stands currently relies too much on primary sources and doesn't make any indication of notability, but that can be improved. (Note also that the page content of David Brown (internet musician) has previously appeared at Boyinaband, which is currently a redirect to You and What Army, the band that Dave is a member of.) Ahiijny (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There's more coverage that could be uncovered and added. I do think he's a notable YouTuber. Obviously not on the same level as say, Shane Dawson, but his collaboration with iDubbbz and "Don't Stay in School" got him covered to a degree in news sources. Ss112 18:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere. Not far from being notable, but there are not enough sources with significant coverage to say that it is at least borderline. I'd like a redirect because it prevents new editors wasting their time on creating an article which already existed, and if I'm not mistaken, Boyinaband used to redirect to You And What Army, I think. I do not know how Asian Jake Paul merits an article, but it's not the focus of this AfD. wumbolo ^^^ 21:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to You and What Army. Sources I could find, and the ones linked above by Ahiijny fail WP:SIGCOV, and it appears WP:TOOSOON for him at the present time. Borderline, but not notable I think. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given keep/redirect split
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to You and What Army. Even though his video Don't Stay at School passes WP:GNG, that does not mean that he is notable. Also, if you search up 'Boyinaband' on Google. It just brings up primary sources, which fails WP:RS. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 18:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Ahiijny. Three independent, reliable, secondary sources is just barely enough to pass WP:GNG as well as another source in the article [4]. 344917661X (talk) 15:41, 3 September 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. It is clearly a "keep". Further discussions related to renaming or content can be taken to the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter suspensions[edit]

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

This list of accounts suspended from Twitter isn't notable (and this does not convince me). Thousands upon thousands of accounts have been banned on Twitter, and many tiny incidents have generated a little bit of buzz, mostly routine coverage. Some of the suspensions on this list might belong at Shadowbanning. wumbolo ^^^ 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Twitter is unusual due to its high-profile in culture (Trump, George Zimmerman, etc). It's not like getting banned from YouTube or Wikipedia. The list is of notable cases, not every case. At least, the notable cases randomly added. -- GreenC 19:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - If the rules were being more aggressively followed - in the sense that only blue-linked individuals (etc) who had a reliable source about their banning then I can fully see this is being both a workable and a not unreasonable list. I do however think the list name is a little confusing as-is. "High-profile Twitter suspensions" would make more sense, as well as some needed clean-up. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much better. And I would still like to be a bit more convinced of the list's notability. wumbolo ^^^ 20:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As touched on on the talk page, if you limit scope to notable individuals only, you exclude high profile purges on e.g. Russian bots etc Deku-shrub (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deku-shrub: Yes, sorry I should have clarified that that statement referred to individuals (I saw the alt-right mention - which clearly has lots of coverage, but would be an odd distinct article) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "rule"? -- GreenC 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of continuing news coverage regarding Twitter’s policies especially Alex Jones’s permanent suspension from Twitter makes this article extremely relevant and valuable.The lorax (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a valid topic with Twitter actions to suspend accounts (or not) being frequently covered. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that the list should be limited to blue-linked entries, but after reading this entry, I reconsidered:

@nemuismywife | Japanese man | August 2017 | Uses new account | Account permanently suspended for making death threat against a mosquito. The man started a new account.[52][53]

That's too funny to remove :). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Nicholls[edit]

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

Not a notable newsreader - as the article about her says, she only works part-time. Also, the article has had the tag saying "May not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines" for quite some time now. Vorbee (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. A Google News searched turned up only one article from Radio Times. Basically little to no coverage, so that fails WP:SIGCOV as well. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Delete Being a stub is not an issue, but per WP:BLP and WP:GNG article fails on both counts. Shushugah (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of source. Even a stub cannot be expanded. GenuineArt (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News anchors are not handed an automatic free pass over our notability standards for journalists just because their existence can technically be referenced to a staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer: the notability test for a journalist depends on receiving independently-given coverage in media outlets that don't sign her paycheque. But there are literally no other sources being cited here to boost her notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every news anchor is default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too few sources. Fails WP:GNG —AE (talk • contributions) 03:25, 8 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhaji Bhide[edit]

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

I don't think I've ever seen a more perfect example of WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS. Zero notability apart from single brouhaha. He does not hold any office of significance nor a major politician. fails WP:NPOL Accesscrawl (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV received in multiple media outlets including the BBC. He was already a local leader in the state. Now got highlighted in national news. The person has enough notability that BBC has covered the subject in detail^[1]. BLP1E does not apply here, as the subject has got coverage over a period of several months.-- DBig Xrayᗙ 21:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "जिन पर है भीमा-कोरेगांव हिंसा के आरोप". 1 September 2018 – via www.bbc.com.

Keep. Clearly notable political leader with SIGCOV - per even a cursory search.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject passes WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject passes WP:SIGCOV indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Weak because no official political recognition, keep because coverage looks OK . [5], [6] , [7] . --Adamstraw99 (talk) 16:12, 5 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Verma[edit]

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

No assertion of notability for this actor, simply an assertion that he exists and works. (Also an apparent autobio, but that's not grounds for deletion.) Orange Mike | Talk 16:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The two sources cited are not reliable. Also, I did a lot of searches on the subject and was unable two come up with anything that would establish his notability.45.64.242.124 (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:NACTOR and is essentially a list of productions he has been in with no evidence of notability, and a link to his personal website. All we know is he exists and that he works in the entertainment industry. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:21, 9 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AlterYouth[edit]

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

Non-notable startup. Of the cited sources, SD Asia ("creates content about startups", and a co-sponsor of Grameenphone Accelerator) is a press release that contains one sentence about AlterYouth, a startup going through the accelerator. The New Age and The Daily Star articles are based on this press release and add nothing to its one sentence about AlterYouth. Youth Co:Lab (a UNDP initiative) says AlterYouth won a non-notable award. The Ministry of Education pdf supports a general statement about education in Bangladesh. It doesn't mention AlterYouth.

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest found no independent reliable source containing a depth of coverage that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Worldbruce (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. A promo page on a startup just going about its business. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too soon. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely promo piece, fails NCORP. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above —AE (talk • contributions) 04:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Villas in Naples[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list, not meeting WP:LISTN. Hitro talk 15:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATD, no issues that aren't fixable through ordinary editing or redevelopment. I can only guess at the way in which the nominator thinks this is indiscriminate as no explanation is given. Not passing LISTN doesn't mean deletion is necessarily merited unless it's an oddball classification; WP:LISTPURP is more relevant when we have an ordinary list of things by place. Looking at this list's potential as an index, we have five articles apart from this list in Category:Villas in Naples, which may or may not be enough, but many more if we go the next level up by place to Category:Villas in Campania, or even to the country level at Category:Villas in Italy, neither of which have a corresponding list. So this really is the kind of list that shouldn't be brought to AFD, but instead per ATD should be evaluated in terms of either further development at this scope or more broadly. Editors may decide there is justification for listing these at the Naples level because of existing or possible articles, and/or that it should also include entries that don't merit articles, or that it should be expanded to a wider geographic area. A further comment to the nominator: next time you list an article for deletion, don't leave it to the commenters to do this work for you, but instead walk us through the application of the guidelines to the content, and explain if, as here, there are related articles or categories. See WP:BEFORE as well as ATD. Otherwise it looks like a drive-by nomination rather than a thoughtful analysis. postdlf (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what kind of keep !vote was that. Category:Villas in Naples is enough to list notable villas. Still supporting delete. This one is nominated on notability grounds and notability does not require fixation. WP:LISTN is a notability guidelines. Hitro talk 17:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, I'm gathering that you're not understanding. So please take more time to read through the policies and guidelines I cited before responding here, as well as WP:NOTDUP regarding what is "enough" when it comes to lists and categories. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fails WP:LISTN, that is my argument, you brought everything else here. I hope you are understanding this. I am resting my case, let the community decide. Hitro talk 18:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure WP:listcruft(1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12), this is the only one of it's kind. We are not a directory and we don't need to have a list of this. It's utter garbage and so is the keep argument on this one. For god's sake, stop with the ATD arguments. Would you like it to be blanked instead? Also, the list is incomplete. » Shadowowl | talk 18:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing there showing it passes WP:LISTN (mentions in secondary sources.) If kept, should be moved to List of villas in Naples. SportingFlyer talk 19:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN WP:NOTIINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of non notable places, particularly if they are remotely linked to a business. Ajf773 (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTDIR prohibits directory services, which is a computing thing which has nothing to do with this. A list of notable or noteworthy villas is not indiscriminate by any stretch of the imagination. James500 (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are notable?? The entries that have articles? I don't see any. This is one thing WP:NOTDIR covers, and not just limited to business contacts. Ajf773 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them do have articles here. The article for Villa La Sirena is Villa Donn'Anna, for example. They all have articles on the Italian Wikipedia, as far as I can see. See the corresponding category and page over there. Looking at those articles, I think it is a safe bet that they are all notable. James500 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of cottages in Dorset would make about as much sense. Zoopla might be interested though. SpinningSpark 00:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if there are books/journal articles out there that discuss Dorset cottages (especially if WP has a number of articles on some individual Dorset cottages:)), by all means create List of cottages in Dorset ditto articles on houses/cottages/villas of other regions/areas. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic certainly passes WP:LISTN. A selection of sources follows. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romans on the Bay of Naples: a social and cultural study of the villas and their owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400
Designing for Luxury on the Bay of Naples: Villas and Landscapes
Pompeii and the Roman Villa: Art and Culture Around the Bay of Naples
Rambles in Naples: An Archæological and Historical Guide to the Museums, Galleries, Villas, Churches, and Antiquities of Naples and Its Environs
Palaces of Naples
Roman villas on the bay of Naples
Roman Villas in Central Italy: A Social and Economic History

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is near-identical to Andrew's refuted argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of giant animals in fiction (2nd nomination). If he wants to use those sources to create a separate article called Neapolitan villa that perhaps includes a list but is, like those sources, more focused on prose discussion of history, architecture, etc., nothing is stopping him, but he really doesn't seem interested in building the encyclopedia so much as preventing the rest of us from maintaining it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that I haven't read those sources, but I can tell from their titles that, if they are published books, they do not consist purely of a list of names of villas. The reason all of them include titles like that is no doubt that Andrew, as he did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suppression of dissent, also has not read any of them, and simply Googled up a list of scholarly-looking books with titles that sound like they discredit his favourite of the dozen or so valid reasons for deleting Wikipedia pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. A list of Roman villas is certainly appropriate: [8]. It satisfies LISTN and every site would be notable. List of Roman villas in Italy should not be red linked. It can be populated to begin with from Category:Roman villas in Italy, and then from the many other sources that exist. Medieval villas would also be appropriate: [9] [10]. As would more recent but historically important villas (there are, for example, in the Category:Villas in Naples a number of palatial examples from the early modern period to nineteenth centuries which look appropriate). And even if Naples was to small we could just expand to a wider area. James500 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a list of Roman villas. I suspect that the majority of them are not. I tried googling a couple at random and they both turned out to have articles on Italian Wikipedia; Villa Chierchia and Villa di Grotta Marina, and both of them say they are 17th century. SpinningSpark 13:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Looking at the coverage of those two in GBooks and elsewhere, and at pictures of the buildings, and bearing in mind the later is more commonly "Villa Grotta Marina", I would say that both look suitable for inclusion. The Chierchia looks like a palace, and if these buildings were in England, I would expect them to be listed from their age (pre-1700) alone: [11]. I am under the impression the Italian equivalent to listing is the vincolo: [12]. James500 (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TNT delete I'm not sure if this topic could, in theory, merit an article, but what is there is pure crap: practically unsourced, terrible English prose, etc. If they really "are many hundreds", then why were these 28, none of which are blue-linked, selected? Is it just a copy-paste job from Carbonaro and Cosenza? Baku really should be cautioned about leaving stuff like this in the mainspace, and perhaps their attention drawn to List of Man'yōshū poets, which spent two months (128 edits) incubating in the user space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with draftify as well. Or userfy. (Although the fact that the article was created by an it.wiki editor with hardly any history here, and a hilariously anachronistic userpage given when their en.wiki account was first auto-created, might make the latter option paramount to deletion.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists are usually reserved for lists of notable topics, which this is not. And the topic itself fails GNG. Brad v 16:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have an opinion on whether or not the topic of Villas in Naples is notable for our purposes, but I find it interesting that the page is not titled as a list page. As such, there could be a case to make that it should be kept but rewritten. In other words, change it into a regular text page that might have an embeddded list at the end, but would be primarily written about the topic, in regular paragraphs. There is certainly no reason that it must be a standalone list. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: If you look closely at the article and its creator, it's pretty obvious that they would not have been capable of writing a prose article on this topic. What little prose is there looks like MT, and the list might very well just be copy-pasted from the one cited source. There are native English speakers with high levels of education arguing "keep" at this AFD, but they just don't seem willing to do the heavy lifting and fix this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is already significantly improved since the nomination, and whatever can be fixed in any event should not be deleted. postdlf (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TBF, the expansion was a unilateral action by Mortee, several days after the AFD was opened, and only a few hours before I wrote the above (and several hours after Tryptofish wrote the comment to which I was responding), and Mortee wasn't one of the editors I was referring to anyway (I hadn't noticed their "keep" !vote until just now). My original suspicion that the specifically cherry-picked list (are these the only ones that have articles on it.wiki?) was copy-pasted from a copyrighted source still stands, even if Mortee's first edit fixed it by changing the order around. I haven't examined Mortee's expansion of the article otherwise, so I have no opinion on whether my "TNT delete because the article that's there is pure garbage" is still valid, but the validity my reply to Tryptofish is not affected by Mortee's expansion at all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At this point, I'm persuaded that the page should be kept, and improved to be a non-list page that may contain an embedded list. I don't think that the creator of the page should be determinative of a deletion decision, because a flawed page can be fixed, and I'm seeing enough evidence of coverage of the history of architectural style that I'm satisfied that the topic is notable and encyclopedic. I think the problem here is that the page started out looking like a standalone list page, which is something that it should not be. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article itself referenced a book dedicated to the subject of villas in Naples, so I don't see a notability problem. I've added some blue links and some prose on the ancient history, sourced to another book. No doubt someone with access to the original reference can add a section on the later history. I may expand it further myself from other sources. Having a list appended isn't a good reason to delete a stub on a notable subject. Some surprising hostility in a couple of !votes above... it's just an encyclopedia. › Mortee _talk 20:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fine as category, but as an article it doesn't really work. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN, as "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" ie. some books that discuss napoli villas include: Designing for Luxury on the Bay of Naples: Villas and Landscapes - "Through an analysis of five villas from around the bay of Naples (c. 100 BCE - 79 CE), the volume shows that in designing for luxury, Romans developed a sophisticated interplay between architecture and landscape, an interplay which is still seen in architectural design today." (could probably have a wikiarticle on this book with reviews here, here, here, here), Italian splendor : palaces, castles, and villas (discusses 2 Napoli villas), Palaces of Naples - "Thirty estates and palaces are featured here, each with its own style and its own story.", Romans on the Bay of Naples; a social and cultural study of the villas and their owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400 (another wikianotable-enough-for-an-article book, with reviews here, here, here, here), Italian villas and palaces, and Leisure & luxury in the age of Nero: the villas of Oplontis near Pompeii. ps. i'm not sure why some editors suggest that a category is a good replacement for some list articles, i thought they are generally only useful for/used by editors and not readers (if i am wrong please send me a fish or three:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list of notable (or even itwiki notable - this being the sort of thing one would expect better coverage of in Italian) villas in Naples most certainly meets NLIST, and is discussed as a set.Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:GNG. There are no sources demonstrating this is a notable topic or evidence that such a list is necessary or appropriate for the given topic. This list is really just a list of fancy houses of a particular style in an arbitrarily chosen urban setting. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on why the sources given don't cover the GNG? These include a book on current villas in Naples as a collective and two on the Roman villas there, which is part of the subject of the article. 'Listcruft' is an essay and 'listen' suggests you think other !voters are disruptively failing to pay attention to an existing consensus; I take it that notability is your main deletion argument. › Mortee _talk 14:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article violates WP:Listcruft (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12), and I don't feel there are significant reliable sources demonstrating this is a notable topic, including the books you mentioned. Ancient Roman fancy houses aren't exactly relevant to a list of modern fancy houses in Naples. It just gives the article a veneer of notability, when there are villas all over the world and we don't have tons of lists of them on Wikipedia. It's also pretty much a WP:SYNTH argument to try to connect ancient villas and modern villas as far as I can tell. Including the Listen policy was a mistake and I apologize for including it. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have numerous articles on individual villas. Some are in Naples. So we categorize them under Category:Villas in Naples and list them here. That seems very straightforward and simple to me, particularly when we have such a basic list of things by location. The essay LISTCRUFT gives no useful guidance; the relevant consensus-supported guidelines are WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. And that's all without even getting into WP:LISTN, though a credible argument has been made that this would also get a pass on that guideline too, which is sufficient though not necessary. postdlf (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:LISTN; all entries are Wiki pages (en.wiki / it.wiki). Sources are sufficient for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 10 September 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. Cunard's thorough analysis of sources has not been rebuffed by the earlier !voters. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Health Insurance Innovations[edit]

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

Promotional article, all references are mere notices, listings, or PR sites DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:NCORP and is nothing more then a promotional piece for the company. Being listed on a stock exchange doesn't automatically make a company notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MarioGom (talk)`

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Analyst reports

This 3 April 2013 article^{Internet Archive} from Investor's Business Daily notes that Health Insurance Innovations "specializes in 12-month Short-Term Medical plans, or STMs." It notes:
As demand for STMs rises, Health Insurance Innovations should see opportunities to grow its business, analysts say.
...
"However, it does offer healthy individuals a way to protect against major claims at a fraction of the cost of other insurance alternatives," [Carl McDonald, an analyst at Citigroup] noted in a recent report initiating coverage on Health Insurance Innovations.
...
"The company has a timely opportunity to strengthen and build its network of distributors, while navigating the looming changes from health insurance expansion in 2014," Credit Suisse analyst Glen Santangelo noted in a recent report on the stock.
...
Analyst Santangelo cites its "highly scalable" proprietary technology, a competitive edge in pricing and distributor economics, and a low market share of the individual insurance market that allows plenty of room to grow.
The company also has "a large cross-selling opportunity with core customers and ancillary products, and a significant runway to add distributors," Santangelo said.
This 11 September 2017 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:
Cantor Fitzgerald analyst Steven Halper again defended Health Insurance Innovations (NASDAQ: HIIQ) after a negative article was posted at moxreports.com.
...
He added, "We believe the weakness in HIIQ shares today is mostly unfounded. Moxreports published a negative article on HIIQ today. The article attempts to extrapolate from past settlements, what the company's liability would be ."from a "tidal wave of fraud investigations, lawsuits and cease and desist orders." Much of the concern relates to an ongoing 42-state investigation into operating practices, which was previously disclosed. The other issue relates to the company's license as a third-party administrator (TPA) in Florida. The company's application was denied on June 1. In its public filings, the company has indicated that "a final hearing on the matters has been scheduled for October 17-20, 2017, but the company is working with the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the matter prior to the hearing, including discussing whether the OIR will require the Company to hold such a license at all." We agree that the letter from the OIR does not read well and highlights several shortcomings by the company during the licensing process. Finally, the article indicates that insiders have been selling stock despite these issues. We note that the company's CFO, Michael Hershberger has a pre-arranged 10b5-1 plan in place to sell shares which mostly removes any discretion from the timing of sales. We have spoken to the company and management intends to host an investor/analyst call later today."
This 1 March 2018 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:
Cantor Fitzgerald raised its price target on Health Insurance Innovations (NASDAQ: HIIQ) to $60.00 (from $38.00) while maintaining a Overweight rating.
Analyst Steven Halper comments "We expect HIIQ to continue to benefit from solid demand for its alternative individual health insurance products. We believe the recent HHS rule proposal, which aims to lengthen the maximum period of short-term policies, is positive as well."
This 12 February 2018 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:
B.Riley/FBR initiates coverage on Health Insurance Innovations (NASDAQ: HIIQ) with a Buy rating and a price target of $38.00.
Analyst Randy Binner commented, "We are initiating coverage of Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. (HIIQ) with a Buy rating and a 12-month price target of $38 per share. The target is based on a peer multiple of 16x on 2019E EPS of $2.35. This target equates to an 8.7x EV/EBITDA multiple on 2019E, compared to peers at 9.4x. We believe the stock is set up to deliver on several positive regulatory and financial catalysts. Because of the regulatory overhang, valuation is very attractive on a risk/reward basis, in our opinion, with a 4:1 upside/downside outlook."
This 12 September 2017 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:
Canaccord Genuity analyst Richard Close reiterated a Buy rating and $39 price target on Health Insurance Innovations (NASDAQ: HIIQ).
Close said the company should win back confidence as regulatory issues resolve, although it will take time. The analyst says closing these items of concern ought to win back investor confidence.
This 12 September 2017 article^archive.is from TheFly about the same analyst report notes:
Canaccord analyst Richard Close believes Health Insurance Innovations' outstanding regulatory issues will be resolved without a meaningful impact on the business, but said it could take time and remain an overhang until this is settled. Close maintains a Buy rating and said the next likely catalysts for shares would be a resolution to the Florida third-party administrator license application situation.
This 10 October 2017 article^archive.is from TheFly notes:
Canaccord analyst Richard Close noted the Wall Street Journal reported President Trump intends to sign an executive order to roll back certain insurance regulations, which could have a direct benefit to Health Insurance Innovations' business. The order would seek to reverse the Obama-era rule on short-term medical insurance, which limited the duration to no longer than three months, and revert it back to the previous duration of one-year. Close reiterated his Buy rating and $39 price target on Health Innovations shares.
This 15 February 2018 article^archive.is from TheFly notes:
Canaccord analyst Richard Close noted Health Insurance Innovations received a third-party administrator license in Florida, which he said removes a key risk to its story. The analyst said it removes the question as to whether the company can continue to operate in Florida and views it as a significant positive with respect to investors' sentiment. Close expects the shares to react positively and he reiterated his Buy rating and $39 price target on Health Insurance Innovations shares, which are up about 7.5% to $29.10 in pre-market trading.
This 1 March 2018 article^archive.is from TheFly notes:
Lake Street analyst Mark Argento raised his price target for Health Insurance Innovations to $50 citing the company's "strong" Q4 and fiscal 2018 guidance. The analyst recommends being an "aggressive buyer" of the stock due to Health Insurance's "strong fundamentals, attractive relative valuation, and a positive regulatory environment." He reiterates a Buy rating on the shares.
This 3 August 2018 article^archive.is from TheFly notes:
Raymond James analyst C. Gregory Peters reiterated his Outperform rating on Health Insurance Innovations and raised his price target on shares to $55 from $38, saying he is encouraged by management's views that an agreement with regulators related to the multistate examination may potentially be reached in Q3. The analyst added that he believes the company is positioned to handle a potential fine, given its substantial cash position.

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/HIIQ/price-target/^WebCite contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
8/16/2018	Cantor Fitzgerald	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$65.00	High	Paywall link
8/7/2018	B. Riley	Boost Price Target	Buy ➝ Buy	$45.00 ➝ $56.00	Low	Paywall link
8/2/2018	Canaccord Genuity	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$55.00 ➝ $62.00	Low	Paywall link
3/1/2018	Lake Street Capital	Boost Price Target	Buy	$50.00	Low	Paywall link
3/1/2018	Craig Hallum	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$38.00 ➝ $45.00	High	Paywall link
3/1/2018	Raymond James	Upgrade	Market Perform ➝ Outperform	$34.60	High	Paywall link
3/1/2018	UBS Group	Upgrade	Neutral ➝ Outperform	$38.00	High	Paywall link
10/17/2017	Northland Securities	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$37.00	N/A	Paywall link
3/3/2017	First Analysis	Initiated Coverage	Overweight ➝ Overweight		N/A	Paywall link

Other sources

Dieterich, Chris (2013-02-08). "Health Insurance Innovations Slips Post-IPO". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-08.
The article notes:

Investors appeared hesitant to bet on big gains for low-cost insurance provider Health Insurance Innovations Inc. HIIQ 5.67% Its shares slid in their public trading debut.
...
The Tampa, Fla., company sells short-term health insurance plans online using health questionnaires that allow it to make immediate acceptance and rejection decisions.
...
Health Insurance Innovations' focus is fixed-term, 12- or six-month medical-insurance plans, lower-cost alternatives to traditional insurance plans, which are renewable. Its products are underwritten by insurance carriers including Cigna Corp. , among others, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The company's customer base is the uninsured—about 50 million people in the U.S. in 2010, according to the census bureau—as well as those that require stopgap insurance options, such as new graduates or the recently divorced.
Cariaga, Vance (2013-04-03). "Health Insurance Innovations Eyes Boost From ObamaCare". Investor's Business Daily. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-08.
The article notes:

One of those specialists, Health Insurance Innovations (HIIQ), is an online insurance company that connects insurance carriers, brokers, agents and consumers to its portfolio of health-insurance-related products.
...
Although Health Insurance Innovations was founded only five years ago, its management team, including Chief Executive Mike Kosloske, has decades of experience in the business.
The company had about 58,000 total policies in force at the end of 2012, including those that did not involve STM enrollment. That figure was up from 30,000 the prior year. In a fourth-quarter earnings report, management said its distribution network at the end of the year included 46 licensed agent call centers, 262 wholesalers and more than 8,275 licensed brokers.
Trigaux, Robert (2016-06-13). "Will an Obama policy change squeeze Tampa's Health Insurance Innovations out of its key market?". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-08.
The article notes:

Shares in an 8-year-old Tampa insurance company that administers short-term medical plans dropped to an all-time low Monday following last week's proposed change in federal rules governing its business, as well as an analyst's downgrade.
Health Insurance Innovations, which went public in 2013 and now employs nearly 200, saw its shares top $15 early that year. ...
The company's latest trouble began last week when the Obama administration said it wants to limit short-term health policies that allowed healthier consumers to purchase 365-day plans as a cheaper substitute for plans offered by the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. A proposed rule setting a three-month limit that would go into effect in 2017 was issued Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
A day later, Raymond James analyst Steven Schwartz downgraded the stock of Health Insurance Innovations to market perform from strong buy, prompting an additional 20 percent drop in shares. "We expect significant industry pushback and believe that an industry legal response will be likely if the proposal is adopted in its current form," Schwartz said.
Pear, Robert (2018-08-06). "Trump's Short-Term Health Insurance Policies Quickly Run Into Headwinds". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-09-08. Retrieved 2018-09-08.
The article notes:

Lori Wing-Heier, the director of the Alaska Insurance Division, received complaints from consumers in 2015 about telephone solicitations by a Florida company offering short-term plans. At the time, she said, the company, Health Insurance Innovations, and agents selling its products were not licensed in Alaska.
Insurance executives tried to reassure regulators. Gavin Southwell, the chief executive and president of Health Insurance Innovations since 2016, told commissioners on Sunday that “we have invested tens of millions of dollars to ensure that consumers” receive good service and accurate information.
The company said last year that it had retained former Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a former chief executive of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, to provide advice on compliance.
Manning, Margie (2018-06-08). "Founder of Tampa health insurance company is out". Tampa Bay Business Journal. Retrieved 2018-09-08.
The article notes:

Michael Kosloske, the founder of Health Insurance Innovations Inc., no longer works for the company, according to a regulatory filing.
...
Kosloske founded Health Insurance Innovations (NASADQ: HIIQ) in 2008, and was chairman, president and CEO until 2015, when he gave up the president and CEO roles. He stepped down as chairman in November 2017, but remained chief of product innovation at the Tampa company, which develops, distributes and administers cloud-based individual health and family insurance plans and supplemental products in the United States.
It is one of the smaller public companies headquartered in the Tampa Bay area, but has a high-profile stock and was the area's best-performing stock in 2016. Its stock price increased as its products were seen as an attractive alternative to Affordable Care Act health plans.
Manning, Margie (2016-12-29). "How a health insurance provider became Tampa Bay's top stock performer in 2016". Tampa Bay Business Journal. Retrieved 2018-09-08.
The article notes:

Health Insurance Innovations (NASDAQ: HIIQ) stock closed Dec. 23 at $17.50 a share, up $10.83 from the opening price of $6.67 a share on Jan. 4. The 162.4 percent gain made Health Insurance Innovations the best-performing stock of 2016 among Tampa Bay public companies.
...
HII, headquartered in Tampa, develops, distributes and administers cloud-based individual health and family insurance plans and supplemental products in the United States. It takes no insurance risk and pays no claims, an investor presentation said. (See the presentation embedded below.)
Instead, the company works with insurance carriers to design and structure the products and markets them through an internal and external distribution network.
The stock started to pick up steam after a late October announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that limited short-term health plans to less than three months, effective Jan. 1. HII’s short-term medical plans cover individuals for up to 12 months.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Health Insurance Innovations to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The analyst reports from Cantor Fitzgerald, B. Riley (FBR Capital Markets), Canaccord Genuity, Lake Street Capital, Craig Hallum, Raymond James Financial, UBS, Northland Securities, and First Analysis are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.
Cunard (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and do not consider it to be particularly promotional.
Cunard (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article includes none of the sources above that offer any criticism oft he company, and carefully avoid using the phrase "short-term" insurance. That's why I listed it here, as it seems entirely the product of PR, and not very subtle PR at that.. It would require a complete rewrite in order to be nPOV. That's even reason for deletion by Speedy G11. In Cunard thinks it isfixable, this is best shown by fixing it.

and the statement above about publiclly traded corporations has been shown to be inaccurate by the tens of thousands of deletions here. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Coverage in Bloomberg and Reuters among others. Article surely needs work done on it, but the subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:17, 10 September 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. Consensus to remove WP:CRYSTALBALL material and original research. No consensus for a rename. No consensus for a specific maintenance/cleanup tag to note that the article contains original research and/or crystal ball material. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 15:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secession in Russia[edit]

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

Wikipedia does what-if articles now? Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Entirely crystal ball-ish article, with the little info it presents being mostly synthesis material. Only four sources are used (all of them in Russian), and the various statements they seem to reference are seemingly forcibly put together in the article to try to imply that this is an event which is more relevant and likely to happen than it actually is. Not notable as per WP:NEVENTS either. Impru20^talk 17:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I considered AFD-ing this article when it was created, but instead moved it to its current title (from the more-CRYSTAL "Dissolution of Russia"). I think an article similar to Partition and secession in California could be written on the topic (beyond simply repeating content about the Dissolution of the Soviet Union), but I don't have sources; the existing article may have enough POV/SYNTH issues to justify deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep as the topic of seccession is notable. The treatment is almost entirely CRYSTAL and there is very little salvageable, but I'm generally not a fan of the WP:TNT argument. Wikidata leads to ru:Распад России ("Breakup of Russia"), which is obviously the source of the what-if scenarios -- a much better article could be written on the basis of ru:Сепаратизм в России ("Separatism in Russia"), which doesn't have an en.wp interwiki link. Hopefully a Russian speaker will step in and get it done. Daß Wölf 02:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps rename to Dissolution of Russia. This is notable concept; passes GNG. There is nothing wrong with futurology subjects. Page exists on three other languages. My very best wishes (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. According to WP:Crystal, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions.. Not only this subject is perfectly verifiable (can be sourced to multiple RS), but it is also not a speculation/presumption, but a scientific hypothesis. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 15:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and verifiable. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL. I was not able to find sufficient reliable sources that discuss the hypothetical dissolution. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are largely scholarly and ref [1], which is directly on this subject, has a section "Review of recent literature" (google translate) which shows that there is a body of scholarly literature on this. Those participants who have failed to find sources in Engish should read WP:NOENG. SpinningSpark 00:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spinningspark's ~~and L3X1's~~ arguments. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mine's more a statement of what I perceive to be facts than an argument, though. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've corrected. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 11:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to passing WP:V and WP:GNG overall – but remove anything that is WP:OR, unsourced, or WP:CRYSTAL. Redditaddict6 9 09:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic, meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Freire Institute, Malta[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, looks like a fundraising page The Banner talk 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an organization that provides vocational training and other community classes, not a regular academic school, so it needs to meet WP:ORGCRIT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Analysis of existing sources, which demonstrates the promotional natrue of the article and its complete failure of GNG or ORGCRIT{:

Routledge book source that has half a sentence on the centre offering cooking classes. Fails ORGCRIT
A Word document called "Parents Education and Counselling Project Socrates - Grundtvig 2, Learning Partnership". Fail ORGCRIT.
Dead link.
Local shopping guide "wowCity" that shows the address of the institute. No coverage at all. Fails ORGCRIT
A separate non-profit progam description that included three words: Paolo Feire Institute. fails ORGCRIT
A news article relating to $700 raised for the institute by runners.
A Jesuits in Malta page... not independent, so fails WP:ORGCRIT.
Another Jesuits in Malta page.
A news article about how Vodaphone is supporting a book published by the institute. Minor coverage.
A few sentences in a Malta government report that mentions the institute. Not in-depth, fails ORGCRIT.

ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which CSD criteria would you apply here? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G11, unless I am wrong about speedy. this is because the glowing text of the article has been produced from probably less than 200 words of actual source coverage. It's advertising copy. It's obvious the emperor has no clothes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This doesn't look like a G11 candidate - can we have more people discussing the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:ORGCRIT as explained source by source by ThatMontrealIP. The article is heavily promotional and has the pretty overt air of trying to solicit donations to the origination. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Hollis[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Only source providing significant coverage is The real stars of LaVar Ball’s league are the players chasing a dream. Other sources provide trivial coverage, like stat lines, passing mentions, or at most one quote from Hollis. Runningibis (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. In addition to the SB Nation article, which is significant coverage, there is also the Chicago Sun-Times piece, which isn't specifically about Hollis but gives him some attention. Also there is this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Editorofthewiki: The Chicago Sun-Times article just briefly mentions Hollis, with one quote and three total sentences about him. The Unique Sports article should not even be considered, because it isn't reliable and often publishes puff pieces for the JBA and the Ball family (examples: [13] and [14]). So to me, the only article providing significant coverage is the SB Nation piece, which isn't nearly enough coverage to warrant an article. Given that info, please provide some additional justification for keeping this article. Runningibis (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Everything I see is routine (game summaries, etc) or non-independent. Rikster2 (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NHOOPS by playing in LaVar Ball's fledgling Junior Basketball Association. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. SBNation can be selectively reliable depending on the writer, but they still use a lot of amateur bloggers. If notability relies strongly on an SBNation source with few other alternative sources of coverage, it's usually an indication to me the subject is not notable.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to the other sources, I was able to dig up this article from the Hutchison News and this profile pice by a former editor at Rivals.com. This article in the Dallas Morning Mews extensively mentions Hollis. There was also an interview with D1 Circuit. Hollis definitely meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”Hoopseen” is a company that puts on HS tournaments (click “About” at the bottom of the page) - it isn’t an independent source. The other article is at least about Hollis and from an independent source, but one fairly short piece about a local boy signing a pro deal doesn’t establish notability IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same concerns about Hoopseen independence. Also not sure about it's reliability, and I'm not comfortable anyways using these niche, non-mainstream sites for notability (unlike projects like pro wrestling). The Dallas Morning News link was a one-off about a youth summer camp he went to for football, which doesn't help build content for his primary basketball career. I had seen the Hutchinson article before in my search, and still do not think it all collectively is enough significant coverage. His college coverage is not sufficient, and his pro career has not been notable.—Bagumba (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way below our absurdly broad notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Why do so many people think every JBA player is notable? This is another case of routine sports coverage and a failure to meet WP:NHOOPS. Sandals1 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NHOOPS because playing in the fledgling Junior Basketball Association is not in any way notable. The professional career section also relies heavily on individual game scores and personal scores, which make Hollis seem more important then he is, when in reality his as yet minor pro career is just starting out. The sources in the article are almost all either brief mentions or WP:ROUTINE coverage. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 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. Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork whose "sources" are all selected comic strips. The first AfD was over ten years ago with a result to merge (which I proposed this time, but it was opposed), but that apparently didn't happen; in addition, the same issues appear to exist. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- While there is no question that this page needs an overhaul, the secondary characters in C&H are notable enough, and varied enough, to have their own page. My fear would be that the main article would be bloated by trying to put the onus on it to hold the secondary characters information, which will undoubtedly occur as editors will see the need to insert more and more. Indeed, I semi-proposed in the merge discussion mentioned by Erpert (which I opposed) that the "Secondary Characters" section of the main article should be deleted or its information moved to this page to make both the main article and this one better, as the source used in the main article (the 10th Anniversary Book) is a RS as it is not just the strips but also Watterson's commentary and thoughts. Deleting the Secondary Characters page would, imo, have the unintended (though not unforeseeable) effect of risking the main article getting worse. I say fix this one as much as possible. It may not ever be perfect, but it can get better. But don't risk the integrity of the main C&H page or the inevitable edit wars that will happen as editors think that "this" information needs to be in and others don't. What's the old phrase? Cutting off the nose to spite the face? Vyselink (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article should instead be fixed, well, why don't you do so? (FYI: the !votes in AfD discussions are "keep" and "delete", not "support" and "oppose".) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A) Thank you for the notice on keep/oppose. I have changed it. B) I may very well try to get to helping fix the article, however, even should I not, it does not invalidate my opinion on this thread. Vyselink (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Calvin and Hobbes is indisputably notable, discussing the cast of characters is an important part of covering a work of fiction, and in this case it's reasonable to separate that discussion. The set of Calvin and Hobbes secondary characters is collectively notable, even if individuals in that set don't have sources devoted to them. AfD is not cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calvin and Hobbes#Secondary characters Huge WP:OR fest of strip narrative/analysis which needs to go away. Maybe the current section could be expanded, but not from this. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe--no secondary sources in the article present does make this a WP:OR/WP:NOT-fest. --Izno (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redirecting is fine as well, but I don't think this is a likely search term. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To keep the descriptions concise on the main page for Calvin and Hobbes, and also because the strip is significant enough for each character to have a healthy description of him/herself. Songwaters (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe strip is significant enough to need this kind of "fork", and if it is deleted or merged, the main article will become bloated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: could use some concision, but this is a valid topic and stand-alone article is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, particularly with regard to what others have said about this as a necessary fork to avoid main article bloat. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe » Shadowowl | talk 18:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed some cruft and added some references. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- More cruft removed, more references added. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Changed vote to Redirect per User:Mangoe. All characters on that page, just not that specific section. Clarification may need to be made. Redditaddict6 9 01:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In-universe fan cruft. Carrite (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrad Ghadir Zadeh[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NGYMNAST or WP:NHOOPS. English references have passing mentions or do not mention him at all. Deleted recently at Persian Wiki Hitro talk 15:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per above. zero result in Persian.Farhikht (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no coverage. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isom Butler[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Only potentially non-trivial mentions are Isom Butler: A lockdown defender and an improving scorer and four sentences in What to Expect from LaVar Ball’s JBA League. Neither articles are from a reputed source. Note that stat lines, passing mentions, etc. do not count as significant coverage. Also, Butler cannot be deemed notable because he was a nominee for the McDonald's All-American Game, as 48 other players in Southern California and countless more across the nation were nominated as well. Runningibis (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Everything I see is routine (game summaries, etc) or non-independent. Rikster2 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my original PROD reason: "Does not meet WP:NHOOPS. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Predominantly trivial mentions in sources." I am disappointed that Editorofthewiki, a long-time editor of lots of quality content, deprodded with the non-notable reason of "mcdonalds aa nominee".—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the sources mentioned above, there are also several Press Enterprise articles and this Lonzo Wire piece. Re to Bagumba I was not stating that being a McDonalds aa nominee makes him notable, but it is a reason why it should not be prodded. This is the correct venue. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Editorofthewiki: The Lonzo Wire article, as well as all of the Press Enterprise articles, just mention Butler once and/or are game summaries. Your definition of "significant coverage" seems too broad. Runningibis (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been more effective to give a plausible reason why the subject was notable when you deprodded, and attempt to avoid an AfD altogther. Alas, I still maintain that the coverage is not significant enough.—Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete He definitely fails WP:NHOOPS and the coverage I find either isn't significant or is what I'd call routine sports reporting.Sandals1 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG because there is a lack of sufficient significant reliable source coverage of him. Passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE game coverage do not establish notability, nor do the obscure sources mentioned above that did give him more of a focus in their content. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh K. Pandey[edit]

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

References provided seem to be only mentions-in-passing. With all this ref bombing it can be hard to tell. Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable individual. This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to nominate this myself a few days ago but notability tagged it instead. Subject does not meet GNG and the article is likely a violation of PROMO. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article; does not meet WP:GNG. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete-Not a promotional article, hence it is better to modify and keep it short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.198.175.167 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO since it fails to prove the individual is notable, and it is highly promotional. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niles Malone[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. The only non-trivial source on Malone I could find was Straight-shooting Niles Malone. Note that statlines, passing mentions, etc. are considered trivial. Runningibis (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You forgot about this article. Meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Editorofthewiki: That article by Lonzo Wire is entirely based on a piece by Fresh Sports Talk, a site run by a commentator paid by the JBA, so it technically isn't independent. Fresh Sports Talk is also unreliable, because most of its articles are simply puff pieces for LaVar Ball and his family and brand (examples: [15] and [16]). Regardless, only two articles covering a player that is otherwise not notable is probably not enough to warrant an article. Given that info, please provide some additional justification for your "keep" vote. Runningibis (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but just because it is based on the Fresh Sports piece doesn't mean you should discount it since it is an independent article- a secondary source based on a primary source. There were also several other LonzoWire articles and this article in La Voz News. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: The new article you brought up is essentially a game summary. The Lonzo Wire article would be good if they actually did original research, but it appears that they just summarized what the unreliable and non-independent Fresh Sports Talk piece said. There were no other Lonzo Wire articles that covered Malone in depth. Runningibis (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Everything I see is routine (game summaries, etc) or non-independent. Rikster2 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NHOOPS by playing in LaVar Ball's fledgling Junior Basketball Association. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Rlendog (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG due to lacking coverage from multiple independent and significant reliable sources. Passing mentions and stat lines are trivial and do not help meet any notability guidelines. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:19, 8 September 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 Cadet Sisters. Mentioned by name in the parent article, so is a likely search term. czar 23:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Cadet[edit]

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

Does not seem to be independently notable from Cadet Sisters, who look to be only marginally notable anyway. Suggest delete or redirect to Cadet Sisters. Edwardx (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the nom. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG as reliable independent sources do not indicate she is independently notable from the minor band she was a part of, the Cadet Sisters. Most of the claims in the article are also unsourced and her academic history is not worth redirecting in my opinion. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2014 South American Games – Women's 100 Meter Breaststroke[edit]

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

This is an article about a specific competition that occurred in an event that isn't very well known or notable outside of South America. The article is a quick summary of what the event is, and then the results, which can be found elsewhere and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Also, no pages link to it ouside of one redirect I made to fix the title. Beasting123 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. No policy- or guideline-based reasons stated for deletion. Established practice is that event-by-event listings are maintained as separate pages to avoid clumsy, oversized omnibus articles, and nominator provides no justification whatsoever for disregarding this practice -- or for removing only one of the 37 similar articles for this competition, to say nothing of prior and subsequent years. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the implied reason for deletion is that the page is a violation of WP:NOT; this can be viewed as a test-case for a (much wider) deletion if there's consensus that it is a violation. I don't see it; Wikipedia also functions as an almanac and these tables are found in almanacs; having separate pages rather than a single Swimming at the 2014 South American Games page is an editorial decision that shouldn't depend on notability hoops. There is a bit of a circular "keep this article because we keep this article", but until there's a convincing reason to delete, I'm fine with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No real deletion argument has been presented. Saying that it's not notable outside of South America is not true. This is part of a larger series of a notable sporting event. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just going to add that if this is kept, it should be moved back to Swimming at the 2014 South American Games – Women's 100 metre breaststroke. Althought he move was made in good faith, it appears to have been an unnecessary one which is contrary to the naming/capitalization convention followed for other similar athletic event articles thoughout the encyclopedia. Whether it's worth keep this title as a redirect is probably something which should be discussed, but there's nothing wrong with "metre" and no need to change it to "meter" per WP:RETAIN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also noting no mention of Punjabi source searches—worth considering in the future. czar 23:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sultan[edit]

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

In May 2018, I nom this BLP for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Sultan. However it was kept even though there was not a single policy based arguments in favour of keeping the page. I also raised my concerns before the closing admin at User_talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maria_Sultan.

I'm renominating this for deletion because being Director General of the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute is not in itself grounds for notability and I still believe the subject fails to meet GNG. G'search does produce namecheck type of press coverage which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. Saqib (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. It is too early for WP entry. She is name-checked by multiple source but fails to satisfy WP criteria of significant in-depth coverage. She was also involved in fake degree case. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Most sources in the article are either profiles or are not independent of her. There is also no indication from reliable sources that she is a notable figure. Having interesting jobs does not make someone notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage exists in quotes and passing mentions which is not presently enough per WP:GNG. Rzvas (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am unable to find evidence that she meets either GNG or WP:NPROF: mentions of her in the media are largely describing her opinion on something, and her work is not widely cited. I'm a bit hesitant because she is being quoted by mainstream news media in multiple countries, but I don't think that's quite enough for notability. Vanamonde (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Renault Kangoo. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Kangoo (Argentina)[edit]

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

Does this car warrant an article in it's own right, I don't think so suggest merge the content if necessary into Renault Kangoo XyzSpaniel Talk Page 13:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author had previous warning and block and has subsequently been indefinitely blocked so I would suggest that this page be merged/redirected into Renault Kangoo XyzSpaniel Talk Page 18:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only difference is that now it's a rebadged Dacia Dokker, instead of the European Kangoo. It can be explained with a hat note in Renault Kangoo, as well as a section with a quick explanation linking to Dacia Dokker. --Pc13 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 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. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Capra Craig[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIME (notable only in context of crime). No suitable article for merge. Tera TIX 13:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as laid out by nom. Additionally, coverage was fairly typical didn't really satisfy LASTING and is not especially encyclopedic. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E of a person notable only in the context of a crime where she was found not criminally liable for mental health reasons — thus violating WP:PERP as this has had no enduring significance to justify the invasion of her family's privacy rights. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat it violates BLP1E and PERP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons Bearcat puts well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no lasting coverage. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above.BabbaQ (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:LASTING impact. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lay Association for Development[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 11:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic discussion of date development work by young people began in Africa / WP:IDHT

Comment. The following was just removed as an "entirely bogus claim", but the reason given misread the statement: "Volunteers range from ages 21 to 40 and it has been called the first association to send young volunteers to help with development projects in Africa." For "associations" and "development projects" this may well be true. Referenced to: Rovisco, Maria (2016-05-13). Cosmopolitanism in Practice. Routledge. ISBN 9781317159070. Archived from the original on 2017-11-28. Jzsj (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was that the article subject was "first association to send young volunteers to help with development projects in Africa". It's a ridiculous claim. Missionaries of Africa started working in Africa in 1868. Here is a [of dozens of missionary groups who have worked in Africa over the past several centuries]. A BYU article says that in 1852 "three Mormon missionaries took their first steps onto the vast continent of Africa after a seven-month journey spanning 9,713 miles with neither purse nor scrip." Ever heard of Colonization of Africa? To quote the article, "In popular parlance, discussions of colonialism in Africa usually focus on the European conquests that resulted in the scramble for Africa after the Berlin Conference in the 19th century". There have been centuries of missionary work, conquest, religious proselytizing, colonization and development in Africa, by young, middle-aged and old. The Dutch began colonizing South Africa 310 years ago. Do you not think that a) they did some development work int those 310 years on the country and b) some of it might have been done by young people, over that 310 year span? Saying this tiny organization was the first to do something similar in 1986 is not accurate, even if you found one source that says so. If you can find three sources, maybe. One is an anomaly. Part of employing reliable sources in Wikipedia articles means being critical about what the source says, and not just plopping them into the article if the name of the article subject is in the source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is no more off topic than if someone were to remove all the refs from an article during a deletion discussion. Just below you will find my defense of the source, which requires immediate attention, not consignment to a talk page. Jzsj (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article content disputes belong on the talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore ref: It is important that references to books, such as this, not be eliminated while the deletion discussion is in progress. The following ref that was just removed needs to be considered for restoration to the article now. "Volunteers range from ages 21 to 40 and it has been called the first association to send young volunteers to help with development projects in Africa." Note the importance of all four words "young volunteers ... development.. Africa".Jzsj (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And what is the value of that passing mention? The Banner talk 16:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some may credit the fact that Lay Association for Development is mentioned in a book edited by scholars from Germany and Portugal. Jzsj (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just one sentence? Do you really not understand the guidelines for sourcing? The Banner talk 16:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know well the policy, and if you would kindly be specific in your references to policy, and not assume that all is said on your side, then I would be grateful to you. Jzsj (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, this discussion belongs on the talk page, not the deletion page. If you insist on continuing your disruptive editing on this issue, please keep it within this collapsed area above so that the deletion discussion can continue based on notability issues.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to close this off-topic discussion: Canada World Youth has sent young people to do development work in Africa in continuously since 1972. The source that i removed (claiming 1986 as first youth development in Africa), and which Jzsj is contesting, was obviously inaccurate. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of unrelated issue collapsed into box above. Please stick to notability issues in AfD discussion, not article content disputes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ,ajr internation organization, with a good number of sources. Most of them are clearly not related to thesubject, and are sufficiently substantial. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, along with the addition of this recent coverage by CNA and this and this from Ecclesia news. Jzsj (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, here we go again: the announcement of a training, an article not mentioning the organisation and an announcement of a new mission. None of them discusses the organisation in-depth. The Banner talk 21:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please omit the second reference, I got it confused with the third. But you might help by adding the other two simply to update the article. Jzsj (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I add "sources" that are irrelevant? The Banner talk 22:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is welcome, as a participant has been blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Searching for this organisation under its Portuguese title I found a number of sources with substantial coverage which appeared to be independent, including this, this, this and this while it's English title produced hardly anything. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Cwmhiraeth. There does seem to be adequate coverage when you search for the Portuguese name of this association. James500 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 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. Whether this should be merged or redirected is not a matter for AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic asteroid[edit]

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

There is no evidence that the article subject exists, or has ever existed. The section "Hyperbolic comets identified as asteroids" is the only valid thing in this article, and it's not deserving of its own article. "hyperbolic comet" is a valid article topic, which actually exists, and I recommend that that article be created. wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there a class of objects that includes both asteroids and comets? Minor planets maybe? Hyperbolic comets currently redirects to list of hyperbolic comets, and really, I don't see much encyclopedic content for either topic. It may be best to combine the two, though seeing as most of them ended up getting reclassified as comets... — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comet#Long period is a better redirect target for Hyperbolic comet. wumbolo ^^^ 13:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator incorrectly asserts that the article's subject, Hyperbolic asteroid, does not exists. It is one of few orbital classes established by the JPL Small-Body Database (see 'Oumuamua). The term has also been used in publications such as On the Rotation Period and Shape of the Hyperbolic Asteroid 1I/'Oumuamua (2017 U1) from Its Lightcurve. Also, the main contributors such as Exoplanetaryscience and Kheider have not been notified of the article's nomination, which I consider good practice if not mandatory. Rfassbind – talk 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, the database you linked contains ZERO "hyperbolic asteroids" (except wrongly describing the interstellar one). And your papers are outdated - they call 1I/2017 U1 a HYA, when it's actually a comet. wumbolo ^^^ 13:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on WP:RELIABLE sources, not on snarky comments and/or irrelevant assertions. The class Hyperbolic asteroid has been defined by astronomers at JPL (asteroids on hyperbolic orbits with e > 1.0). Nobody knows how this orbital class will develop in the future, but as long as it is used by the most respected source of the entire minor-planet project on Wikipedia, it must not be deleted. Rfassbind – talk 16:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
but as long as it is used by the most respected source of the entire minor-planet project on Wikipedia It's not used by it anywhere. As you said, it's merely defined by the JPL. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. wumbolo ^^^ 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course the subject exists. For one thing, A/2017 U7 is an existing example of such a thing, and for another thing this is an obviously different class from other objects. A hyperbolic asteroid implies that there is a dynamically unusual asteroid which has somehow been ejected from within the Solar System's (or any other stellar system's) frost line to the oort cloud, and has somehow come back. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. "A/2017 U7" is not such a thing, when it's a comet. wumbolo ^^^ 17:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait it's a comet? I guess somehow the announcement of that passed by without me noticing. Well still, it's a theoretical group of objects that there's no reason to believe doesn't exist. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it happens. Yeah this is a Russell's teapot. And this doesn't belong on Wikipedia per WP:BALL. wumbolo ^^^ 18:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Vulcanoid, Claimed moons of Earth, Tyche (hypothetical planet), all objects theoretically possible to exist with no unambiguous claims. If there are no such proven examples of something, then the article is not necessarily on the objects themselves, but the theoretical concept of the object's existence, which is perfectly encyclopedic. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the examples you gave have been notable objects of scientific discussion and theories, but that scientific discussion doesn't exist for hyperbolic asteroids. wumbolo ^^^ 19:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not any hyperbolic asteroids have actually been observed, astronomers are certainly looking for them and they are discussed in the literature. This book for instance, lists a number of asteroids predicted to have orbits so unstable they become hyperbolic. By the way A/2017 U7 was once thought to be a hyperbolic asteroid. That it is now believed to be a comet does not stop that fact being encyclopaedic and relevant to this article. Further, ʻOumuamua was also initially identified as a hyperbolic asteroid in this paper. SpinningSpark 01:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about hypothetical hyperbolic asteroids. Not about past incidents of astronomers misidentifying small objects. In order to have such an article as Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly, you would want to have many sources discussing the mistake afterwards (similar to the Use–mention distinction). The book you provided seems like a WP:PRIMARY source. wumbolo ^^^ 09:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The paper printed in the book is "Synthetic Proper Elements for Outer Main Belt Asteroids" a scholarly paper published by Springer with 103 citations in other, mostly peer reviewed, papers according to gscholar. You demand scientific sources and when one is presented try and dismiss it as WP:PRIMARY. If we can't use that one, there is not much in the scientific literature we could use, but in any case, Wikipedia does not proscribe primary sources "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". The search term hyperbolic asteroid has hundreds of results on gscholar and at least some of them are relevant. I don't subscribe to your claim that the article is about hypothetical orbits and not real objects identified with this property. It is clearly about both. Your BADGERing of every contributor here is beginning to sound desperate. SpinningSpark 10:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spinningspark; the term is well-defined and the effort to determine if any exist is covered. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fairly new classification but that's not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SpinningSpark, and Andrew. It doesn't matter if the thing/phenomenon has actually been observed. It has fair deal of mentions in literature. It is not mentioned like wormholes, but still, it merits an article. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "'Oumuamua". I am unconvinced that we have adequate coverage in suitable sources to establish notability. This source, indicated by SpinningSpark, does not appear to define "hyperbolic asteroids", but rather mentions several asteroids whose orbits have subsequently become hyperbolic. SpinningSpark also mentions a Google Scholar search. However I am struggling to find "hyperbolic asteroid" explicitly described, except in the context of 'Oumuamua. For what it's worth, I added a couple of references about 'Oumuamua. I realize that 'Oumuamua was initially classified as a comet, then changed to an asteroid, and subsequently changed back to a comet. Nevertheless, 'Oumuamua seems to be the only object that has ever been clearly described as a "hyperbolic asteroid". (As an aside, I see that several people agree with SpinningSpark's "Keep" rationale, yet no-one has added a reference to the article. This particularly dismays me.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Axl: "...does not appear to define hyperbolic asteroids". From the source under "Hyperbolic cases", Let us begin with the most unstable orbits, that is with those that already during the 2Myr integration became hyperbolic. For these nine escaping asteroids... (my emphasis). Thus, they are defining hyperbolic asteroid as one which has achieved escape velocity. That is, an asteroid in a hyperbolic orbit. This is unlikely to be explained any more explicitly in a source on hyperbolic asteroids since it is well known in astrodynamics that achieving escape velocity is synonymous with in a hyperbolic orbit. However, the relationship can be found in basic textbooks such as Fundamentals of Astrodynamics. In any case, I question the claim that a lack of a definition in sources detracts from notability. It is enough that the source discusses the subject at all. SpinningSpark 14:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your emphasis indeed! "Thus, they are defining hyperbolic asteroid as one which has achieved escape velocity." No, they are not. They are describing "escaping asteroids" that have "unstable orbits" that become "hyperbolic". The source is unsuitable for establishing notability of the topic "Hyperbolic asteroid". [The source may still be suitable for supporting information stated within the article.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:53, 3 September 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. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find any reliable independent secondary sources about this "film" (actually a long form YouTube video) other than the one unsigned commentary in the web-only Long Island Press. Flixster is primary and now 404 anyway, Hot Indie News is a promo page and not RS, IMDB is a user-edited directory. It's self-produced, self-published and self-promoted, and even covering the plot is WP:UNDUE because, well, Alex Jones. We'd need independent analytical sources to establish context for every word, per WP:FRINGE. Those sources do not, as far as I can see, exist. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of substantial mentions in secondary sources even searching without the subtitle ("The Mask Comes Off"). Surprising number of comments on foreign language articles though. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability, as I cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources about this topic. I would be fine with a few sentences' mention at Alex Jones if needed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG and NFILM. No reviews on RT, nothing of note listed on IMDb, and I couldn't find anything else searching the web either. I don't think there's anything worth merging to Alex Jones. The film is just one of Jones' many methods of tell the same story, the "censorship" was nothing unusual (I think both fans and non-fans of Jones can agree on this), and his other documentary isn't treated in any more depth in his article either. Daß Wölf 01:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never heard of it, so I ran a news archive search. turns out nobody else ever did either. zero hits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Alex Jones propaganda video. Carrite (talk) 09:47, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Bertaccini[edit]

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

CV of a TV journalist/news producer. Within its excruciating detail is no real sign of actual notability. Awards, for example. Calton | Talk 11:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cleaned up a bunch of crap in this article and it still reads like a puff piece supported mostly by self-published sources like wedding announcements. Toddst1 (talk) 03:44, 3 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Yadav[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN no notability for a politician, not an elected representative ever, son of a notable politician holding some local party office of a regional party".. given sources are only primary Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, no election won, no notable post held. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. son of a politician does not make a person notable. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Perfect case of WP:NOTINHERITED Accesscrawl (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A blatant case, as Accesscrawl pointed out, of WP:NOTINHERITED. No sources can be found that show the subject as notable. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable board member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 3 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Nicholls[edit]

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

Not a notable newsreader - as the article about her says, she only works part-time. Also, the article has had the tag saying "May not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines" for quite some time now. Vorbee (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. A Google News searched turned up only one article from Radio Times. Basically little to no coverage, so that fails WP:SIGCOV as well. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Delete Being a stub is not an issue, but per WP:BLP and WP:GNG article fails on both counts. Shushugah (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of source. Even a stub cannot be expanded. GenuineArt (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News anchors are not handed an automatic free pass over our notability standards for journalists just because their existence can technically be referenced to a staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer: the notability test for a journalist depends on receiving independently-given coverage in media outlets that don't sign her paycheque. But there are literally no other sources being cited here to boost her notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every news anchor is default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too few sources. Fails WP:GNG —AE (talk • contributions) 03:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 UY Aviation King Air C90 crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. No prolonged coverage on the crash of this chartered-plane. SD0001 (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This aircraft crash appears notable to me per WP:GNG, caused 5 casualty, 4 inside plane + 1 on ground. I would like to hear from WP Aviation editors on how crash articles are evaluated. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: - see WP:AIRCRASH which is a well regarded essay (but not policy). This one however is borderline per AIRCRASH (which is not coverage based, as the Beechcraft King Air is a borderline light aircraft - is MTOW varies by model and is at the edge of the criteria set in AIRCRASH). The crash being fatal - including casualties on the ground - increases chances of notability. WP:GNG trumps AIRCRASH is any event - the question here is assessing coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Borderline in terms of meeting AIRCRASH (borderline size, but the plane was doing a a chartered passenger flight, there were casualties, and notably this crashed into a city and caused a casualty on the ground as well). Very widely covered in June. Some coverage in July - [17][18][19]. I'm at weak as I don't see coverage in August - however seeing we're evaluating this on 2 September (2 months and a bit from the event) - this is a somewhat RAPIDish situation - my personal crystal ball however does divine some additional coverage is likely (per judicial probes and the like).Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2nd link (xinhuanet) is on an entirely different incident, just noting. SD0001 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, 2nd link is about another incident, but it does mention this incident in passing. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After sitting on the sidelines, I am going for Keep as it passed WP:GNG due to the significant coverage WP:SIGCOV it recieved in national and international media BBC ^[1] Independent UK ^[2] and NYT^[3] there was coverage after the incident as well ^[4]^[5], And Although I have not found but due to the CBI investigation, I am sure this incident led to changes in the Standard operating procedures in India. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Five dead as light aircraft crashes in Mumbai". 28 June 2018 – via www.bbc.com.
^ "Plane crashes into busy part of Mumbai".
^ "Chartered Plane Crashes in Mumbai, Killing at Least 5".
^ "Mumbai plane crash: Prelim report in 'few' days, says Kirit Somaiya".
^ "Mumbai plane crash: FIR against owners if test flight was conducted despite adverse opinion, says CM". 19 July 2018.

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. – Joe (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Software (US)[edit]

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

Promotional bliss, fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. Only reference included in the article is their own website. Lordtobi (✉) 09:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, lack of notability - searching in Newspapers.com, Internet Archive holdings and Google Books did not turn up substantial reliable source coverage. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good number of passing mentions, internship offers in newspapers, product announcements and whatever, but it doesn't look like there's any significant coverage at all. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional, fails WP:NCORP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MSXML[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable and there are no independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.142.216.205 (talk) 08:54 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google scholar reveals significant number of references, isbn 978-1861005892 is also significant. A number of these may not be independent but I think we would be hard pressed to dismiss everything. Can nominator confirm due diligence has been given to WP:BEFORE? There has also been significant unconstructive editing on the article prior to nomination.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has received significant coverage in reliable academic sources and book coverage and therefore passes WP:GNG. The disruptive editing of the article suggests a negative COI, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep It was a big product, used by everybody, everywhere, back in the day. scope_creep (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Puerto Rico Bayamón. czar 23:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bayamón FC Femenino[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:NCORP. Sources are primary and I am unable to locate significant coverage to satisfy the notability criteria for both organization and football club. The editor whose username is Z0 08:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, I don't see anything to help this article, fails pretty much every WP you can throw at it. Govvy (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sports teams aren't subject to WP:NCORP but rather just WP:GNG/WP:FOOTYN. This one, at the very least, comes closer than you might think: [20] [21] [22] That being said, this may be better merged into Puerto_Rico_Bayamón, assuming they are the same organisation. SportingFlyer talk 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't subject to FOOTYN either, as you well know. That page is not an SNG, it is a Wikiproject football essay. The links you bring up are WP:ROUTINE coverage of a few matches, and contains next to no info about the team itself. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, WP:FOOTYN represents longstanding consensus about football club notability. Routine articles are fine for club notability IMO because they show the club is covered by the media on a consistent basis. SportingFlyer talk 19:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article will be improved as the team progresses through this season in the new Liga Puerto Rico. It shouldn't be merged to Puerto Rico Bayamón because both are different teams even though they are under the same club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavierAlejandro23 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability per the GNG, searches do not reveal anything better. The GNG is the only guideline that applies to sports team articles, per WP:NTEAM. WP:NCORP specifically excludes teams, and WP:FOOTYN is an essay, not an SNG. A merge to the men's club would also work. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Puerto Rico Bayamon until there are more sources. They are the same club, it is not a problem to cover two teams in an article. This wouldn't have come to AfD if it was a section in the larger article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, because of Jacknstock. ~SML • TP 13:47, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Texas (mercenary)[edit]

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

The IP left the following motivation at the talk page:

There's not enough here for a whole article, I suggest it should be merged into War in Donbass or deleted entirely. I've inserted the tag to nominate it, but merge seems like a totally acceptable solution as well. 156.42.6.1 (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find it unreasonable. Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see "significant" coverage. A RT interview is not neutral in this context, and is just him talking about the war. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree, not enough coverage to warrant a separate article, no probs with having a line at Texas (disambiguation), directing readers to War in Donbass.Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 5 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Botanist[edit]

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

I admit I'm no drinker, but this advert created by User:Thebotanistgin seems not to make a very solid argument for notability. The sourcing is pretty feeble. Orange Mike | Talk 22:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews in the Chicago Tribune and Vancouver Magazine are clearly from reliable sources, and this local one is as well. The book Spirit of Adventure (not available online) is a reliable source for the still but not for the gin. Some of the other reviews maybe self-published, but I think the coverage by unambiguously reliable sources is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sourcing is far from feeble: Chicago Tribune and Vancouver Magazine are reliable enough to be referenced thousands of times on Wikipedia, and both cover the subject in detail; Several other sources are also present. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are promotional, and the Chicago Tribune article is a promotional interview+recipe piece. wumbolo ^^^ 23:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wumbolo. Chicago Times article is promotional. » Shadowowl | talk 18:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The discerning drinker wants to know. The Chicago Times article may be promotional, but it is also informational. Additional external links have been provided, and more can be found via Google search. --Vicedomino (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Gin lists 35 other brands in addition to 'The Botanist', all of which have separate articles, and many of which are similar in style and content to the article on 'The Botanist'. See, for example Konig's Westphalian Gin. It seems as though usage has long since trumped the aggressive desire to delete. It seems to me that the effort ought to be in the direction of improving the article, rather than deleting what is already there. --Vicedomino (talk) 18:27, 4 September 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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Mall (Mexico)[edit]

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

Article on a small-to-mid size shopping mall has had no sources for preceding six years. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com reveals none. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added Find sources AFD template for "Forum Culiacán," which is the name indicated in the article. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bakazaka. I still have to !vote delete on the basis that even Spanish-language sources are highly limited and WP:ROUTINE, generally a mention of a sale or discount at a store in the mall, or otherwise not passing WP:CORPDEPTH. Chetsford (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references about a fire and crime. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These don't seem to help it pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The article on the crime contains a one-sentence mention that a murder once took place across the street from the mall. The fire was a small grease fire on a stove at a restaurant in the mall's food court that resulted in no injuries or damage and was "quickly extinguished by the fire department". Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not moved to Forum Culiacán, the article should really be rewritten to be about the mall operator. There are Forum malls at Forum Buenavista (Mexico City area), Coatzacoalcos, Cancún, Tepic, and Tlaquepaque (Guadalajara), along with an outlet in Cuernavaca. They also own some other shopping center banners, such as La Isla. The parent company is known as GICSA; it has an article on eswiki. Raymie (t • c) 19:57, 7 September 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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rumble[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has significant coverage at trusted sources. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of the sources aren't reliable. Other are just routine, events covered but not focused on this wrestler. It's a huge article, but in the end, includes every single, irrelevant match he had and all promotions are independent, no big promotions like TNA, WWE or ROH. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 1 September 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. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Martino[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are a ton of sources in this article but most of them are WP:ROUTINE. There are a few however which are not, and those few I believe are enough to establish notability. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject is a New England-area career boxer with typical fights under his belt. Sourcing was done overwhelmingly by using trade publications and internet lists of boxing titles. No continual and significant coverage of the subject from reliable sources. One source used is mention of the subject in a book. Also, the notation of the subject's inclusion in a New England documentary that aired on a New England TV station does not meet notability guidelines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 1 September 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) 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topo Designs[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The only good reference I see is [23], which is a local interview. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Power~enwiki I understood the Denver Post to be significant, reliable and secondary, but considering I have yet to find another source that meets this criteria, I do not oppose your nomination for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stussll (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the WP:GNG. Besides the Denver Post article, we have non-trivial articles from [24] Rocky Mountain Collegian, [25][26] Hoodline, [27] Business Insider, [28][29] KUSA (TV) and Denver Business Journal (basically same article), [30] GearJunkie, [31] 303 Magazine, and [32] Forbes. Then there are dozens of articles that have paragraphs about individual Topo products or the store, including such big name sources as Wired, Self magazine, Seattle Times, Wired again, Outside magazine [33][34][35], 5280 magazine, Travel and Leisure, Forbes again, and GQ [36]. ---GRuban (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban How do WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG relate? Given the context, I assumed the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH should be the standard used to determine notability and thus supersede those in WP:GNG. If there is an existing discussion on this topic you can point me to I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm new to editing so doing my best to get up to speed. Stussll (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- GRuban, Stussll, please be aware that the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations are described in WP:NCORP. Both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP describe the same criteria but whereas GNG is a general guide for all topics, NCORP provides specific examples and interpretations to assist with companies/organizations. This means that the references that meet the criteria for establishing notability go beyond WP:RS. For example, CORPDEPTH (a part of NCORP) provides guidelines on the type of content expected within a reference. Similarly, ORGIND provides guidelines on the type of content that is considered "independent" and explains that the content must be both "funcional" independent and "intellectually" independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The statement "non-trivial articles" provided by GRuban above caught my eye. This is only a part of the criteria a reference must meet. But, be aware, references must also meet the other criteria detailed in the other parts of NCORP. An analysis of the references listed by GRuban:
- This Collegian reference relies on statements by an employee, no indication of independent analysis or opinion (intellectual independent), fails WP:ORGIND.
- This Hoodline reference is a trivial article, fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on information provided by an employee, no intellectual independence.
- The second Hoodline reference is a trivial article basically stating that Topo Designs was about to open a store in SF and that it sells a wide variety of bags, all handmade in Colorado. It contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.
- This 9News article is also a trivial article and fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This gearjunkie reference has no attributed journalist or author (staff post), fails WP:RS.
- This 303 reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no information about the company.
- The Forbes reference is on one of their Blog sites (click the little (i) after the author's name) and fails WP:RS

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, references are churnalism, product reviews, interviews, etc, just the normal press activity we'd expect from any company. No significant or in-depth coverage. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HighKing I generally agree with your assessment of each of the article's included sources. Although, about the Forbes article...are you suggesting any article written by a Forbes "contributor" fails WP:RS? In this context–where the author has spoken to executives from the companies she is reporting on–I'd assumed she could be considered reliable. Secondarily, what, if any, impact does a source's prior writing (i.e. The Guardian and Quartz), have on their reliability? [Comment added by Stussll, not signed.]
- Response In WP:ORGIND, see the examples of dependent coverage. It usually comes down to whether the article was subject to editorial control/standards - the "sites" on Forbes do not. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, HighKing – thank you for clarifying. Stussll (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:ORGDEPTH; the coverage is hyper-local and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing's analysis, and eg The Hoodline provides local news (WP:AUD) and the collegian has no analysis but is instead promotional, with sentences like "Colorado-based outdoor bag and apparel company Topo Designs values the outdoors and community." Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:59, 10 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Irma Fournier[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to be notable. Being related to someone who is notable does not automatically establish notability for his relatives and friends. Keivan.f^Talk 06:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't appear to have been notable in her own right, and notability is not inherited. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marrying a claimant to a defunct throne does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLPPROD might've been possible here - as the sole source is a deadlink (and doesn't seem reliable in any event). In any event - clearly does not pass GNG, nor does the text make clear why she would be independently notable of her (defunct) royal husband.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete hard to say whether this was written as a hoax, a gag, or a remarkable bit of trivia; no sources found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ibrahim Pasha[edit]

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

Unsourced and trivial. The subject does not seem to be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 06:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - firstly, it wouldn't be trivial, since ministers are generally viewed as notable, and given the age, any coverage at all would probably be sufficient. However, despite a fairly active search (including Aly, not Ali) I couldn't turn up anything conclusive, so for the moment Delete seems appropriate. Luck to anyone else in a search Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: - see below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Icewhiz:'s second source (first is inaccessible) there is evidence of existence. There's only actually one distinct link between Ibrahim and Riyad, which is needed to properly understand it (see footnote 52 on p297). In any case, I'm happy for this to be keep. Thought it worth pinging @Keivan.f: on it, given his comment below. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since the Khedive was essentially an indepdent country, he is notable. However we need to verify his existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I'd be perfectly happy to accept any reasonable evidence of his existence as sufficient for a Keep Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no prejudice against keeping or recreating this article if his identity can be verified. Keivan.f^Talk 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NPOL Verified his existence via 1954 m.sc thesis[[37] and appearance in the notes of an academically published book.[38]. There's also a NEWSORG (Arabic) source in List of Ministers of Education of Egypt - but it's a dead link and I'm unable to find the piece online.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 4 September 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. – Joe (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Enver Pasha[edit]

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

Unsourced and trivial. The subject does not seem to be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 05:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SOLDIER(2), A Polish (his father) General in Ottoman service. Added a couple of refs + interwiki to Turkish Wikipedia (which does cite some more sources). Additional sourcing in Russian and Turkish likely. Also discussed in sources in relation to his notable descendants' literary pursuits (in which his letters are mentioned) and his notable father.Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER. General officers are considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp's point, that's clearly in the rules. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. Generals are indeed notable under WP:SOLDIER. James500 (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Presumed notable per WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:49, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Fayzi Pasha[edit]

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

Unsourced and trivial. The subject does not seem to be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 05:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very likely to be notable considering that he was a military commander and from a royal family. He's mentioned in lots of books and thus its likely there are better sources available offline. SD0001 (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage in books does appear to be about him, and is certainly sufficient for a 110 year-old figure. Someone with better access may be able to make absolutely sure either way, but on the balance of knowledge I can find, I think Keep is most suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Field marshal. Governor of Yemen three times and Baghdad once. Easily meets NPOL and SOLDIER(2). See bio in notes in the Brill book - [39].Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 4 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Hasan Ağa Mir[edit]

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

Unsourced and trivial. The subject does not seem to be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 05:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced since creation. The only source I could find online is this, which is not a RS and only mentions the subject in passing. Brad v 14:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Our article says that this author wrote in Persian. That language does not use Roman script. How is his name spelled in Persian script? James500 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @James500: As Persian is my mother tongue, I'm able to spell the name in Persian script. It should be something like this: "میر حسن آقا میر". Keivan.f^Talk 20:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - In Azeri - Mir Həsən Ağa Mir - azwiki entry.Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced article that makes lots of unsustained claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Miserably fails GNG. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Khan Muqaddam[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced. The subject does not seem to be notable either. Keivan.f^Talk 05:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was the ruler of an independent Khanate. This is a clear case for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find a source that mentions him. It actually mentions him multiple times and shows he was a major leader in Iran.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Pack Lambert. The ruler of a Khanate is plainly notable. James500 (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPL. Ruling a Khanate and being governor of Tabriz,[40] are clear signs of notability. His name might, however, have a more popular transliteration to English.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to azwiki and ruwiki (now available on the interlink) - they do however disagree on his death date - they say 1806.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly significant enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R.F. Kuang[edit]

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

Recently published author, does not meet WP: AUTHOR notability. Content on the page primarily about the published book. Shobhit102 | talk 04:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. Her book, The Poppy War, is held by over six hundred libraries: [41]. There is a lot of coverage in GNews: [42] [43]. James500 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possible solution? Remove any biographical content about the author (essentially only two short sentences of the present article) that cannot be verified, move the article to the title The Poppy War, and any biographical information about the author that can be preserved can be included in The Poppy War#Author. James's sources above do not actually demonstrate the notability of the author as they are all about her book (see also WP:NOTINHERITED). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, per EMG's sources, if she's already been "commissioned" (is this the right word for when an author is requested by their publisher to write a sequel, regardless of whether money was exchanged?) to produce two sequels, I guess that information would be more at home in an article on the author than an article on the first novel, so keep. I do wonder about the effectiveness of editathons promoting the creation of stub articles on modern Asian-American writers, though. I'm obviously very sympathetic to their goals, and even if I wasn't their good faith could not be questioned, but encouraging folks in the "real world" who are not necessarily familiar with our BLP policy specifically to create BLP articles might cause more harm than good to the project in the long run. (Wikipedia does have a systemic bias against Asian-American writers relative to, say, white or Black American writers, but English Wikipedia's bias against non-English literature in general, and the literature of Kuang's birth country and its neighbours in particular, is far, far greater. And our systemic bias is actually very much in favour of modern, English-language speculative fiction, so whether creating more articles like this one actually helps the problem is a legitimate question.) This is, however, way outside the scope of this AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep looks like she passes WP:AUTHOR (book was reviewed). Note that 2nd and 3rd books of this trilogy are scheduled to follow this debut novel. There were reviews (I just added one form the Washington Post, plus there is this: If an Asian American author doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, do they exist?, Kundiman and the Asian American Writers Workshop are trying to chip away at the website’s blind spots, one page at a time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: - WP:AUTHOR has a much higher bar than an author merely being reviewed - AUTHOR(3) states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews., and AUTHOR(4c) has won significant critical attention,. A few reviews do not satisfy this. A large collection of reviews - possibly satisfy AUTHOR(4c).Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to creation of this article by the Asian American Writers' Workshop - how is that relevant? COI? Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it's COI, just that it certainly caught my eye when I ran a search on her name. Kuang, in my opinion, is notable, but I have noticed instances where these events produce a problematic overabundance of partisan enthusiasm (not necessarily ethinc.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep William Graham ^talk 16:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@William Graham: I agree with you on what should be done here, but since AFDs are not votes, simply saying "keep" without even providing a reason (or, preferably, a detailed, unique argument) will just lead to you being ignored by the closer. It's not a serious concern here since the page is unlikely to be deleted, but if all the keep !votes looked like what you wrote above, a good AFD closer would simply discount all of them and soft-delete the page because the only one who made an argument was the OP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, there are also a couple of Chinese-language reports from Chinese-American media (World Journal and Boxun). Timmyshin (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to The Poppy War. The author of a single book with not that many reviews (and the reviews and coverage are focused on the book, not her, and some of them are not independent coverage - but rather promotional by the publishing house (or interviews with the author)) - most certainly does not meet NAUTHOR (or GNG). The book (or triology if it actually gets published) does meet the rather low bar of WP:NBOOK. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can keep the article as a bio; I have expanded the page with details of her life sourced form some of the several profiles that newspapers have run since the book came out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above - The Poppy War is widely reviewed and collected by many libraries. I agree we can keep the article as a bio because there are sufficient sources and, in addition to being a Marshall Scholar, Kuang will publish at least two more books as part of the trilogy. Megs (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, serious coverage, one more if you need it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LISTN, specifically "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Birthplace is no more a factor in the selection of Playmates than hair color or height. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ajf773, No different to having "List of Playboy Playmates by birth year" or "List of Playboy Playmates by gender", Clearly LISTCRUFT. –Davey2010^Talk 13:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a list this doesn't seem notable at all, but may be a fine category. (This is not a WP:NOTDUP argument -- sometimes something that isn't notable can still be a category). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:56, 2 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Arastoo[edit]

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

Thresholds for general or actor notability appear not to be met - there's a distinct lack of of in-depth coverage (as opposed to listings and passing mentions). Declined a couple times at AfC and published w/o sufficient sourcing improvements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NACTOR. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the subject also fails GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be possible to change this page into a redirect to his most notable work Abadan and then put some of his biography there? Just an idea, new to page creation. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saman's notability is most related to his role in the Iranian transgender community. Unfortunately the page "Transsexuality in Iran" has been renamed Transgender rights in Iran which would be a poor fit for a move. I am also new to article creation and hoped that material from his Farsi article could be translated, but I do not currently have those resources. Are there different measures of notability for people of marginalized communities? Lastchapter (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - we don't apply value weightings to subjects ("this topic needs more exposure"), we just document topics that already have received a certain degree of coverage from other sources. Meaning, regrettable as it may seem sometimes, that if worty cause A is not getting coverage in the mainstream media, we are not the venue to rectify that... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback. I've been in conversations about gender gap and similar concerns and was told that there was some movement on Wikipedia to not solely reflect traditional media power dynamics, but I haven't found the discussions they referenced. I'll try to follow up with those editors to clarify. Lastchapter (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: May fail NACTOR, but passes GNG. Sources 2, 3 and 4 all amount to significant coverage of the subject, and we could probably find more Persian language sources if we tried. GNG applies over NACTOR in this case because 1) his notability is derived from being transgender instead of from being an actor and 2) NACTOR is a lower standard anyway, so if it meets the higher one, that's sufficient. Sourcing isn't in the best shape, and some other things could use clean up, but deletion isn't cleanup. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if a subject passes GNG, then the subject doesn't have to pass anything else. But I dont think this subject passes GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just argued that [44][45][46] are all significant, reliable, independent sources. You claim to disagree but haven't explained why. Would you? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few sources in the article that show the subjects passes WP:GNG (as stated more eloquently by Compassionate727). When you combine that with the fact that Saman also had a major part in a notable movie and it's a Keep. JC7V-constructive zone 02:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article is notable; Because his life and his work are independent coverage from independent reliable sources.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] فرهنگ2016 (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough rs sources have been identified to indicate that WP:BASIC is passed, regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 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. So Why 15:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Valentinelli[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This BLP AFD was previously closed as "No Consensus" more than two months ago. I am renominating it as a failure of the WP:GNG, for the following reasons:

Of the seven sources, none contain verifiable, biographical information:

one (geeknative.com) is a non-RS blog,
one (Onyx Path website) is not WP:INDEPENDENT,
three contain purely incidental mentions of her of between one to three sentences or are simply extended quotes from her social media (and, therefore, not intellectually independent),
two are either pseudo-reviews or book lists of her books (one is a trade review on Publishers Weekly, the second is inclusion of a book on an "upcoming titles" list on Fantasy & Science Fiction)

My BEFORE search on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds no other RS.
On a note not strictly related to the AFD, in this article we use "themarysue.com" to affirmatively declare another BLP (James Frenkel, whose own article is largely sourced to Twitter and Livejournal and should also probably be AFD'ed) has engaged in harassment. While this is not done in WP's own voice it still probably needs sourcing to something more substantial than a website whose declared beat is "comic book movies ... and the weirdest finds on the internet", if available.

GF pinging previous !voters and closer: User:Chrissymad, User:BOZ, User:Calton, User:Agricola44, User:Newimpartial, User:Hobit, User:TonyBallioni, User:Ritchie333. Chetsford (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(A) I think I should point out that Publishers Weekly is not "trade". (1) It is read by librarians. University, school and public librarians are certainly academics, scholars and educationalists. They are certainly not tradesmen. Librarianship (aka library science, information studies etc) is a scholarly academic discipline. There is no such thing as a "library trade". (2) It is read by bibliographers. They are academic scholars pursuing an academic scholarly discipline. (3) It is read by the book buying and reading general public. They are not tradesmen either. (B) The book review in Publishers Weekly is not a psuedo-review, and it counts towards WP:AUTHOR like any other periodical book review. James500 (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to WP:DRAFT-space so it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In principal I have no problem draftifying just about any kind of article. However, I do have a problem draftifying BLPs since we have an obligation to the privacy of individuals to use publicly accessible areas of WP to only host content that is accurate and verifiable. A BLP deleted for absence of RS, therefore, should not be draftified except in a few special cases of which this is not one. If the situation with this individual's notability changes in the future a WP:REFUND could always be requested. Chetsford (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep I believe we typically book reviews are used as RSes for authors (and reviews of an art show for artists etc.). And she's seen limited coverage beyond book reviews in reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of my reasons in the past. The "Keep if we can..." should hold no weight, otherwise AFD is meaningless. We can always wait and wait and have "ifs" but without concrete reliable sources, well, it needs to be deleted. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' and Note that Publisher's Weekly publishes very brief reviews of all books being promote by reputable publishers; WP editors therefore do not count PubWeekly reviews as contributing notability to a book. Valentinelli is mentioned briefly in a few places, mostly minor blogs. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:SIGCOV. It's probably just WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment E.M.Gregory I have to disagree with you about Publisher's Weekly. While the reviews are not always lengthy, they absolutely do not review "all books" published by reputable publishers. In fact, I once looked and broke it down and found that they are actually very selective. While I personally prefer other review sources when making collection development decisions (for various reasons that are not pertinent here), PW remains a valid RS for Wikipedia's purposes, just as James500 pointed out. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish Publisher's Weekly reviewed all books. It's so hard for small-press published authors to get into libraries. But yeah, it appears the OP doesn't have the best grasp of the publishing industry, let alone little subsets like RPG publishing. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while not a case of BLP1E, the sexual harassment incident received widespread coverage as part of a general process of introspection on sexual harassment in gaming; combined with the reviews this definitely puts Valentinelli on the right side of GNG and NBIO requirements. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the sexual harassment incident received widespread coverage - Where? My BEFORE search on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds no other RS mentioning Monica Valentinelli. Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not finding sources. The best I can find is a brief mentions in the WaPo aritcle [74].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems legit as an additional, mainstream source after themarysue (which is already a RS per editorial oversight and professionalism).

Anyway, after the Hillfolk/concrete nomination, I will not be helping you find sources. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - see above. The argument that sources exist but they cannot or will not be disclosed fails the WP:ORGSIG requirement that sources be demonstrated as opposed to simply being declared. Please weigh this argument appropriately. Chetsford (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article plus WaPo are more than enough to establish NBIO; you need not petition me for more. Also, as I have noted in other AfDs, you have mistaken the status of Geeknative: its author is a communications professional and journalist who has written on RPGs for Enworld and The Scotsman; therefore Geeknative falls into the class of reliable, self-published sources. Also note that "Industry insider" status at Gencon and Guest of Honour status at Ropecon also contribute to NBIO and CREATIVE, much as you might wish otherwise. Newimpartial (talk)

I disagree that a person who has contributed a story to a RS (The Scotsman) is, thereafter, a standalone RS for all time. (That said, I'm probably just generally incredulous that we would ever greenlight something called "Geeknative Blog" as a RS for sourcing to the high threshold demanded of BLPs. This is frightening and concerning.) Second, can you clarify which of the four criterions of WP:NCREATIVE being an "Industry Insider" at the 3900-attendance "Ropecon" game fair meets? Chetsford (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just the story for The Scotsman; I would almost think you're trolling, but I will AGF per policy.

I will also AGF and assume some kind of intellectual dyslexia: Ropecon is a Guest of Honor status and Gencon is Industry Insider; the criterion they fit is as evidence of "being regarded as an important figure ... by peers or successors", which you would presumably know if you had read NCREATIVE. I get the sense you are uncomfortable letting creative types decide who is important in their respective fields, but that's what NBIO does. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense you are uncomfortable letting creative types Not at all. I think our gap of mutuality here is that I'm not comfortable classifying someone who has written an instructional manual for a game as a "creative type" in the way the meaning was intended by NCREATIVE; something that NBOOK says as much when it states that "instruction books" are specifically disincluded from its criteria. I also don't see being an "Industry Insider" at 3900-attendance Ropecon is a greater point of notability than being an "Industry Accolade" at the 40,000-attendance Concrete World Expo [75]; objectively, however, we would never OK a BLP to Bob Harris of the Decorative Concrete Institute on the basis of him being one once. We all have hobbies but, I think, it's important we are able to properly contextualize the relative importance of those hobbies within society at large and take care we aren't re-imagining their import to squeeze square pegs into round holes. Monica Valentinelli is not exactly Gabriel Marquez; she doesn't have to be for inclusion on WP but she can't be Bob Harris either. But I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree on these points. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This statement above is why you probably shouldn't be AfDing RPG related content until you've taken some time to learn something about the field you are discussing. I don't think you have a very strong grasp of what the RPG profession entails, what an RPG constitutes, nor how it connects to the publishing community at large. Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do, however, I appreciate we may have different opinions on game production (creative versus manufacturing) and certainly respect your different view of it. Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, Chet, if you want to have an RfC or a Village Pump discussion about whether game designers are covered by CREATIVE, and whether books of game rules, settings and scenarios are covered by NBOOK (as is true for both fiction and non-fiction in general, so there shouldn't be much moving of goalposts), I think that would be grand. It would probably be better for the project than if we "agree to disagree" (sic.)

We will certainly continue to disagree about the CREATIVE applications of concrete, although I accept that it has some in the hands of an ARTIST or to entomb one's gangster enemies. :) It doesn't matter, by the way, how many people attend your outlaw biker or undertaker convention, it doesn't make either one relevant to the regard one is held by one's CREATIVE peers. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Ping me when Wizard's Spell Compendium, Volume 4 gets a Pulitzer nomination or its authors an OBE and I'll happily adjust my position. Until then, they're in the same category as Home & Deck Repair, vol. 6: Stains & Finishing; recognized within their industry but completely unacknowledged outside it. There's nothing inherently wrong or disreputable about that and it is no cause for offense, but it is a fact and it needs to be mentioned to help evaluate the suitability of an article for WP when a small industry accolade is mentioned as a cause for keep. Chetsford (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' No evidence of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CREATIVE, however, a person has the presumption of notability if they create notable works; as lead writer of the Firefly RPG and lead designer of Hunter: the Vigil, she certainly meets this criterion. Then it is a matter of sourcing, and at last count we have six independent, reliable sources plus the Guest of Honor roles, all of which pretty much nails down the sourcing, I think.

I know people get confused about NOTINHERITED, but its application to creators and works is quite simple: creators do not contribute notability to their works, but works most certainly do lend (presumptive) notability to their creators, per NBIO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep With a small COI disclosure that I have friends who are friends with her, although I don't know her personally. The whole Frenkel situation was a huge in-community kerfuffle, I know WP:BLP1E but aside from this, she's a deeply respected and highly credentialed person within the field and with RSes from the Verge to Publisher's Weekly on the page already I am baffled anyone thought she wasn't notable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually missed that she'd been blurbed by Charles de Lint - which yeah. I mean when a PW mentioned author and games designer is blurbed on her short story anthology by a living legend, how much more notable do you have to be? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A blurb ≠ WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A blurb may not independently be WP:SIGCOV but when you combine her coverage in Publisher's Weekly, and the coverage of the Frenkel controversy on the Mary Sue, it presents a strong image of a significant figure in SF/F and RPG publication. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Abrams#The Mary Sue, a very brief review in Pub Weekly (which gives brief reviews to most/almost all trade books being promoted by mainstream publishers,) and a blurb ≠ WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case for notability is not exactly overwhelming, but the Publishers Weekly, The Verge and The Mary Sue strike me as sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural organization[edit]

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

Devoid of useful content or sources. Rathfelder (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Agricultural organizations? which exists. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say it is a legitimate article topic, but that currently it is useless, acting as a form of unwarranted WP:CONTENTFORK. As noted there are plenty of them, and a good article could be written on it, but it seems wrong atm. (Re)Write would be preferable. Soft delete would be preferred Nosebagbear (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see that an article about agricultural organisations as a whole, across the world, would be very useful. Rathfelder (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's certainly more to say about this topic than a dictdef; the volume of articles in the category should demonstrate notability of the concept. If there's a plausible redirect target, that would be a reasonable editorial replacement for this stub. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a concept. Its just a label. There are myriads of different kinds of agricultural organisations.Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is only three sentences along and has no references. I am inclined to agree with User: Fred Bauder that all information conveyed by this brief article could be conveyed by the category called "Agricultural organizations". Vorbee (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content, which tells the reader hardly anything that they couldn't have guessed from the title. If the article is significantly improved, I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete – WP is not a dictionary. would support redirect to the American Farm Bureau Federation. Redditaddict6 9 19:32, 5 September 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 List of Internet top-level domains. – Joe (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.ninja[edit]

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

Per emerging consensus and suggestion here. Fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. Suggest redirect to List of Internet top-level domains.

"Shady TLD" (Symantic)
"Clearly the whole thing started to spiral way out of control right about here." (memeburn.com)

No other sources found. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I suggest prodding TLDs before nominating at AfD in the future. wumbolo ^^^ 22:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom - passing/transitory coverage. Given the explosion of TLDs, for any that appear RUNOFTHEMILL, an initial bold redirect referencing previous AFDs might be worthwhile, with AFD only if reverted. PROD is inappropriate as they should be redirected rather than deleted. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - .ninja is NOT a top level domain, at least according to some quick research. Therefore a redirect is not suitable - and as such, my delete vote. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Google decided to pull a fast one on me when doing research. Retracting my previous vote in favor of a redirect one. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. As noted above, BEBOLD is definitely becoming order of the day, with Talk first if reverted and then AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Just because it exists doesn't make it notable. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 19:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "जिन पर है भीमा-कोरेगांव हिंसा के आरोप". 1 September 2018 – via www.bbc.com.

[2] "Five dead as light aircraft crashes in Mumbai". 28 June 2018 – via www.bbc.com.

[3] "Plane crashes into busy part of Mumbai".

[4] "Chartered Plane Crashes in Mumbai, Killing at Least 5".

[5] "Mumbai plane crash: Prelim report in 'few' days, says Kirit Somaiya".

[6] "Mumbai plane crash: FIR against owners if test flight was conducted despite adverse opinion, says CM". 19 July 2018.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]