Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 September	25 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 Draftify. Per author's request -- RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Penumatsa[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. All the blue linked films in the filmography have been recently included by the article creator. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources that may confirm notability as per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 12:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have provided the article with all reliable and third-party sources. Request you to re-consider and untag deletion. Mind Sweepr12 (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a deletion discussion. Wikipedia community will discuss and reach a consensus in 7 days. If it is decided that this article should be kept then it won't be deleted. Currently, I do not think that the subject is meeting inclusion guidelines. Hitro talk 12:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely minor or nonexistent mention of the subject in the RSs given. Article appears true, open to change opinion if good sources were found, but that doesn't look likely. It seems 'Sasi' would be more likely to qualify for an article than this guy, some of the sources are primiarily focused on him, but barely mention Rohit. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The very first citation directly states about Rohit as the Filmmaker working on Trilogy with Sasi(Sharat Kumar), citations are placed with respect to the facts, If the article is talking about film Sheesh Mahal which is directed by Camp Sasi and Rohit is associated in some other way, that article shall speak more about sasi than rohit. Yet, there are other article which talk about Rohit as good as sasi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind Sweepr12 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. The citations are accurate, but they don't show that Rohit is notable. He just doesn't seem to be anywhere near famous enough for an article. Looks like the only slightly notable thing he's been involved with is the flim Sheesh Mahal, and the few good sources on that are mostly about the film itself & the director. I'm not saying the information in the article is wrong, I'm saying the sources don't support Rohits' notability. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's coz they both are a team and have done more projects together than alone, and Rohit penumatsa has spend moretime as a writer and editor. please suggest if I should rename the article to Rohit & Sasi as thats how they're known usually. Mind Sweepr12 (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as mentioned in the above comment, all those movies/links talking about Sasi, Rohit/Avanti Ruya is the editor for all of those films, Hence the article should stay! Mind Sweepr12 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, as noted in Wikipedia guidelines "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" and in this opinion does not have suitable coverage or recognition at this time. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move as its not ready/suitable yet, request moving it to draft space, for me to work on it further and the resubmit later in time. Mind Sweepr12 (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 29 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. Tone 07:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scaphism[edit]

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

Article subject is described in ancient sources but may be mythical. Doesn't qualify for a stand alone article but may be suitable as a short section elsewhere. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination doesn't seem to be proposing deletion and the "doesn't qualify" bit is unsupported by evidence or policy. See also WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOTPAPER, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I agree with Andrew D. and this subject is notable independently.فرهنگ2016 (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Suggest Merge~~ weak keep I'm pretty sure this nomination is partly as a result of concerns I raised on that articles talk page, and at the RS noticeboard. In short, that there is only one apocryphal source. The article is ultimately based on a paragraph from the story of Mithridates_(soldier), an article also based on the same, single, poor, source. Notably we don't have an article on the work "life of Ataxerxes II" itself. IMO the two existing articles would ideally be merged into one article about the text (life of A II) itself, but at the very least I think the scaphism article should be merged into the Mithridates article. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved since I first saw it a few days ago, and I understand the arguments as to keeping it: it has been referenced many times in fiction and sensationalist pseudo-histories. My problem was always more with accuracy rather than notability, and the improved article substantially addresses my concerns. I do still find it strange to have two entirely separate articles deriving from the story of Mithridates, when Life of Ataxerxes II itself isn't worth one...but that's not really the point of this discussion. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being mythical doesn't stop it being notable. Nor does tracing back to a single ancient source. The only thing that counts is that sources discuss it in-depth and the nominator has not claimed this requirement has not been met. I don't support merge. The passage about Shakespeare, for instance, could not sensibly be merged into the Mithridates article. SpinningSpark 16:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As User:Spinningspark says this has taken on a life of it's own outside of Mithridates. As long as it's tidied up it's fine. - Snori (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While we may doubt the veracity of what Plutarch wrote, there seems no doubt that he did write it. My one doubt is whether the title is accurate. I have checked a Greek dictionary and the etymology is OK, but I am not sure of the correctness of -ism ending. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 26 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. Tone 07:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cement, Colorado[edit]

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

I have searched and searched, but I cannot verify that this place ever really existed. The searches only pull up sites that have copied this article itself. I also searched in Colorado Historic Newspapers and some Fremont County sites but found nothing. I think it's better to eliminate the article until it can be verified that the place it describes actually existed. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a 1906 Gazetteer of Colorado that lists it as a station in Fremont County on the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G-maps has a place called "Concrete" in this area that appears it could be an abandoned town, or perhaps an industrial complex and I just saw we have a Concrete, Colorado article.[1] Might this be what the article is referring to? --Oakshade (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the best source says it is nothing more than a train stop, then there is insufficient material to warrant an article. If there were more info to MERGE, then adding to Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad might be appropriate - but that article doesn't list every stop. No justification for a Redirect either. MB 01:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for it in newspapers and on google earth, I can't find anything, no refs in the article. Possibly there was a few houses there but they aren't there now and wp:v isn't satisfied. Szzuk (talk) 19:54, 30 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 speedy delete. Speedily deleted after G12 tag. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xewkija Windmill[edit]

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

No reliable sources and no indication of WP:NOTE. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE after a copyvio check, I have nominated the page for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G12. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 24 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. Tone 07:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skylace[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE check identified one news reference, which I have added to the 'further reading' section but it appears to be self-published so is of no value in establishing notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite trying various search terms, I could not find any significant coverage of this language school for children in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable topic, promotional article. – Fayenatic London 13:48, 27 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. Tone 07:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Paulkovich[edit]

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

Fails WP:N Notability guidelines. After reviewing page's citations and performing a search both on Google, Bing, and Microsoft Academic I failed to find significant secondary sources for the author. Sources themselves are all primary sources and link to his published work or blogs. Nothing of general note or reference about author at other sources. He certainly fails the criteria at WP:Author given he isn't cited by peers, has not developed significant new concepts or material, nor has generated a significant movement, nor won awards. Squatch347 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vorbee (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet the notability criteria for authors (or any other SNG). Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 29 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. No reliable sources have been identified, and there are still no sources cited in the article. Sandstein 13:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erdor[edit]

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

Article on a game has been devoid of references for the preceding 14 years. A standard BEFORE (Google Books, Google News, JSTOR, newspapers.com) fails to unearth any references. Article does not pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found (particularly in the native French), otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought this one was closed as Keep, but I guess there was some complaining – it is a common response to close an AFD as Keep when all arguments are for Keep and no responses to Delete, but whatever. So, I will amend my Keep to reflect the sources provided below the relist by Newimpartial. BOZ (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep French-language sources sufficient for GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite some of these sources so that other participants in this discussion can evaluate them? Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above says there are "French-language sources" but doesn't cite any. Can you confirm such sources exist? I have been unable to find any. Chetsford (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as keep, per a request on my talk page i've relisted it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? We are petitioning admins to reverse their closes now when we DONTLIKETHEM? Two French sources with appropriate editorial oversight, recognized in the field, are legrog <http://www.legrog.org/jeux/chroniques-d-erdor> and scifiuniverse <http://www.scifi-universe.com/encyclopedie/medias/9342/les-chroniques-d-erdor> - can we go home now? Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure, with improper rationale. Bottom line, you didn't provide sources when asked so NEXIST wasn't met. Regarding both of the sources you've now provided, they fail WP:RS as WP:USERG. Both are open encyclopedia/dictory type sites. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sourcing has yet to be located. Provided sources are unreliable as directory/user-generated sites, which do not help with WP:GNG. Suggestion of a redirect to a list really isn't valid. Would suggest a redirect to developer/publisher, but they are also non-notable. -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "directory/user-generated" sites in the sense of WP:USERG; both cites I cited are subject to editorial oversight and standards of accuracy; they are not "open encyclopedias". The delete rationale provided here is therefore not valid. Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are not open, scifi-universe.com is clearly a directory listing with no in-depth coverage and specifically lists that no reviews are available. Even giving Legrog.org the benefit of the doubt, that is a single source. (What I see on their "about us" type pages and stuff, I still wouldn't call it reliable) In-depth coverage is not established to pass WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per legrog.org's About section, it consists of user-generated content ("Once logged in, you may start by submitting some news that we're not aware of, and that we will gladly share with the community through our news page, as well as our RSS / Atom news engine. You may also tell us about upcoming cons and events, that we will add to our events calendar. "). Agree with ferret that scifi-universe.com is clearly a directory listing. Chetsford (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, covered by the career-out for self-published writers and whose expertise is recotgnized within a fkeld, is this one <https://mamar68.wordpress.com/2005/12/31/les-chroniques-derdor-tome-1/>

I don't know why y'all are fighting this one so hard as to petition the reversal of the close. The point of WP:USERG is to ensure that the information we cite at WP is accurate; both of the sources I've offered have editorial oversight, so this is followed. The purpose of the WP:GNG and WP:N are to ensure that sources exist for the facts we claim about our topics, which is certainly achieved in this case. At times some editors seem to attribute Notability as a stalking horse for importance - which this little game written in Quebec can't pretend to have much of - but it is intended to be literally a synonym of "documentability" (if that were a word) and this little game definitely meets that criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you don't get. It was an invalid close, nothing more. Posting a wordpress blog certainly isn't going to change any minds. You seem to be confusing WP:V with WP:GNG/WP:N as well. One deals with proving facts/details in the article, the others deal with whether or not we should even have an article. Nevermind you basically just said this game doesn't have any notability. -- ferret (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The key paragraph of WP:N (not WP:V is the following:

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

The relevant passage from WP:SPS is as follows:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

This is the case for the self-published review I cited above. And subjective "importance" is not at all the same as notability". Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To establish the WordPress blog as a self-published review from an "expert" we need to, first, establish that Mario Heimburger is an expert. This would occur through the presentation of RS that discuss his qualifications and reputation, not through simple assertion of his expertise by individual WP editors. We, second, would need to confirm this is a review authentically signed by Mario Heimburger. This can be done through either an unambiguously official website of Heimburger's that links to the WordPress blog, or a RS that links to the WordPress blog and attributes it to Heimburger. Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The self-discussion on the Wordpress blog is confirmed by the other places Heimberger is discussed, and is quite unambiguous on this point. Just read the blog etc. Newimpartial (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN is on you to establish the sources are reliable and the author having credentials, you can't just give people the classic "look it up". Especially in cases like this - WordPress blogs are almost never considered usable, and even less like to be considered something that counts towards meeting notability requirements. Using them is rare but can be rationalized, but using them to prove notability and as a centerpiece of one of a few sources in existence to prove it? No way. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying "look it up", I am saying "read the source I have already given". And your "No way" is it exactly policy-compliant, dawg. The careve-out from WP:SPS is there for a reason. Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying, provide some better rationales or some excerpts/direct quotes from your sources, because I'm not seeing what is supposed to be convincing me here. Or don't. But then you're not going to persuade anyone, and the article will likely end up deleted. Its up to you. I'd also love to see any precedent or example of the existence of a WordPress blog that was the turning point in proving that a subject met the WP:GNG. I've participated in hundreds of AFDs and merger/redirect discussions, and cannot recall a single time of this happening. I've only seen flailing editors try to push it as a last ditch attempt to save an article when they didn't have any valid reliable sources to provide. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty confirming Mario Heimberger as an expert within this field. For which publications or under which publisher has he written in the past? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking primarily of his professional contributions for Transboreal and Phenix. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to look into Transboreal and Phenix to really say anything about Heimburger's status, but assuming he checks out, I still don't feel like there are enough sources, per my "Delete" !vote below. Thank you for telling me what to look into, though :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Sergecross's question about SRS and AfD is concerned, the AfD database isn't really designed for this, but some examples where WordPress sources were crucial to (policy-compliant) Keep results may be found here,[2] here,[3] here [4] and here.[5] Newimpartial (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first example is an AFD with 11 sources given, and the Wordpress blog is specifically singled out for not being reliable by an editor. Another editor points out its a primary source. The article is also currently an unsourced WP:BLP. Not exactly a shining example of what Wikipedia strives for.
The second example is an AFD that specifically singles out a notable award - winning a Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist 8 times, as the keep rationale. It was kept because winning major awards generally satisfy subject-specific notability standards. (See examples like WP:NARTIST, WP:NSONG, WP:NBAND, etc.) It was not kept because of the reliability of a WordPress blog, and is completely not-comparable to the situation at hand.
This AFD has 3 participants. The 1st argument hinges entirely on the subject's special status in the church. The 2nd hinges his argument entirely on a similar subject with similar status (that has since been deleted no less). The 3rd hinges their argument on their status as well, and then lists off 16 some odd sources as part of the argument, with yes, some blogspots. No editors comment on the sources. The keep close is vague, but majority of the discussion was based around professional status than blogspot reliability.
A 6 year old discussion where an editor spams 17 sources into the discussion. 2 inexperienced editors give keep responses that are irrelevant to policy. An editor explains that many of the sources aren't reliable. The other editor give no valid counterpoint. No specific defense, or even specific discussion, is given to the blogspot(s) listed.

Did you just do some sort of advanced search for "Wordpress" and "keep" and just call it a day or something? Because none of these show any sort of valid discussion in favor of the validity of using Wordpress blogs as reliable sources. You just showed some low level, low participation discussions that contained those two keywords. They're terrible examples. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally not sure what the purpose is in investigating the validity of websites that use WordPress technology or services. I think it simply being a "blog" is the issue, here. The exact platform used is completely irrelevant, and an expert could give their opinion on a Tumblr blog just as easily. It doesn't matter to Wikipedia. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross: as the nom can attest, my tolerance for migrating goalposts is not notably high. You said, I'd also love to see any precedent or example of the existence of a WordPress blog that was the turning point in proving that a subject met the WP:GNG. I offered four such examples. You have misread the first one (what 11 sources?) and want to discount the other three, but the fact is, my not-so-advanced search turned these up in the first batch of results. Per WP:SEALION, I am not going to invest my time in pursuing a vanishing set of goalposts or in kicking Lucy's football. The fact remains that SPS do meet WP:V under certain circumstances and the AfD "case law" bears that out, in spite of the non-policy-compliant comments ("nothing from a WordPress domain counts for WP:N") by some editors at AfD, who apparently find the complexity of actual WP policy and guidelines on the subject too confusing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I’m moving the goalposts, then you didn’t understand the question to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 23:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question was literally the possible existence of a WordPress blog that was the turning point in proving that a subject met the WP:GNG - yes or no. The evidence says yes. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s ludicrous. The evidence says no. At no point in any of the 4 examples does it show any editor actually acknowledging being swayed by Wordpress blogs, and in multiple instances, it shows people actively singling them out as not valid. Sergecross73 msg me 03:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Insert arrow here) Let's review the four examples I happened upon: in the first, [6] WordPress blogs were two of four sources cited by the only sourced Keep vote, and one of the other two was a database. The nom did CRYSPS but the result was Keep. In my second example, [7] WordPress was the only source given for the Hugo Award, which was the only N factor mentioned. In the third case, [8] literally all of the sources cited by the one keep vote were SPS, and that argument was the basis for the Keep result. In the last case, [9] the vast majority of the independent sources cited in the one sourced Keep !vote, and the Keep result appears to have been based on the article expanding based on those sources. Yes, there was an editor in this case also who objected to the SRS, but that does not appear to have been a "turning point" in the discussion/result, which was your original goalpost: how could the decisive argument be the CRYSPS when the result was Keep? In all four cases I cited, the SPS were the turning point in the decision; I'm trying to AGF, but I can't see any other plausible way to actually read those discussions. Saying that editors should "acknowledge being swayed" is, in fact, a redeployment of the goal posts as I suggested above; what matters is the rationales offered and the outcome, which on each case depends crucially on the SPS. Newimpartial (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there simply aren't enough sources to write a proper article on this game. The sources that have been brought forth are of dubious reliability and there are only two of them. I wouldn't be surprised if this game had been reviewed by various French gaming magazines when it came out, but I am not able to find them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:GNG - I’m not seeing multiple reliable sources that cover it in significant detail. Shockingly bad original close. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just a minor bookkeeping note. When this (and also the AfD for Monastyr) were reopened, the category listings weren't dearchived. I've dearchived most of them, I believe, but (anyone) please feel free to hit any I might have missed. Chetsford (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. Not finding multiple reliable sources that cover the game in significant detail. Strikerforce^Talk 16:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No evidence for reliable secondary coverage as far as I can tell. Reyk _YO! 13:13, 28 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 speedy keep. Satisfies WP:SKCRIT #1. Please review WP:BEFORE prior to nominating articles for deletion. The article need not be deleted in order to rewrite it. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canisius College, Nijmegen[edit]

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

Yes, this school exist. But this article is so badly translated that it is better to remove it and start from scratch (WP:TNT). Facts are mentioned that are not in the sources and even personal names are translated. Partly nonsense. The Banner talk 19:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. based on the notable graduates, a very significant school. I do not see what is wrong with the English version: the personal names are in the forms used in the enWP, just as they should be. Maybe it has been fixed sincethe nomination. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for admitting that you have absolutely no clue about the Dutch language what makes you unable to see the mess. The Banner talk 18:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:TNT is an essay and does not represent a community consensus. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And because of that you want to keep an absolutely tragic article? Houston, we have a problem... The Banner talk 20:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have a philosophical disagreement. You support WP:TNT and I support WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Until the community reaches a consensus, citations to either essay should be given minimal weight in deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I support the removal of trash, you seem to prefer keeping it. When you call that a philosophical disagreement, be my guest. I call it undermining of the reliability of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 22:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banner, if you think the translation is trash, be WP:BOLD and cut it to one sentence. Deletion seems extreme given its age and available sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the idea of being accused of vandalism by people who can not judge the quality of the translation. So I await community consensus to do that. The Banner talk 07:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC) About the trash: there is no football player named "Jay-Roy Cave"". But there is a player named Jay-Roy Grot.[reply]

Who has accused you of vandalism? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody yet. That is why my first choice still is complete removal under WP:TNT. But stubifying it, with a consensus to do so, is a worthy alternative. The Banner talk 09:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there seems to be SIGCOV in Dutch, in Gnews and Gbooks. For example this article, with good text and photos. The confusing part is that the article talks about the college building being used as the offices for an ad agency. Dutch speakers?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is about the former school building. The Banner talk 23:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage here, here, here, here, book coverage here, here, here and finally this book entry, which mentions an archival semi-amateur film made about the college. So, keep.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was not the notability but the very poor translation, turning the article into nonsense on points. The Banner talk 07:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you speak Dutch, then why not just delete the bad parts with the comment "deleting bad translation"?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is identical to stubifying the article... The Banner talk 09:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per DGG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 07:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Comprehensive School, Breul[edit]

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

Yes, this school exist. But this article is so badly translated that it is better to remove it and start from scratch (WP:TNT). Facts are mentioned that are not in the sources and even personal names are translated. The Banner talk 19:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A look at the article does not bear out the characterisation of it given in the nomination. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To pick just one element: "Everardus Wittert Highland (1875-1959)" does not exist. But there is a nl:Everardus Wittert Hoogland (1875-1959). The Banner talk 22:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an edit to be made, not a deletion rationale. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article looks fine on the whole, Meets GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:TNT does not represent a community consenus and should be given no weight in closing this discussion. — BillHPike (talk, contribs)
- Again you prefer to keep a mess instead of protecting the quality of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 08:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer policy based deletion discussion. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, what policy is there to protect very bad articles? The Banner talk 20:43, 30 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. Tone 07:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forum Neighborhood Mall[edit]

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

Non notable mall. Probable case of paid editing covering malls from the Forum group. None of the references are per se about the mall itself (or from reliable sources) and a cursory search does not indicate the presence of any better references. Jupitus Smart 19:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mall size is under 30,000 sqm. Just another run of the mill shopping mall. Ajf773 (talk) 20:41, 24 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. Tone 07:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forum Sujana[edit]

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

Non notable mall. Probable case of paid editing. None of the references are per se about the mall itself and a cursory searches do not indicate the presence of any better references. Jupitus Smart 18:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another run of the mill mall. Ajf773 (talk) 20:37, 24 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. Tone 07:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese role-playing games on PC[edit]

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

Really not-notable. JRPGs have been released on PC platforms since their inception in the 1980s (MSX, PC-88, X1, X68000). We wouldn't have a "List of puzzle games released on consoles" page for comparison. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no apparent references, therefore seems like WP:OR. Also per nom's rationale as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Reyk _YO! 08:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NOTCATALOG and nom. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 27 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. Tone 07:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portofino (musical)[edit]

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

No notability-proving information, fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a Broadway show with lyrics by Sheldon Harnick. Definitely notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Broadway musical, reviewed (albeit negatively) in the major papers etc. Definitely notable. Added a reference to a later New York Times article. /Julle (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 29 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. Other than the article's creator, unanimous consensus that this fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Williamson[edit]

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

I didn't find enough references for him to pass WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Williamson was nominated for deletion based on WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE:

I have added two additional reliable sources to further establish WP:GNG defined: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list”

•Reference 3. "On your own: David Anderson and Elizabeth Gottlieb". Retrieved 2018-09-25.

This source establishes published content regarding recognized costume design from 1981. Recording available in public domain at New York Public Library.

•Reference 4. Raynor, Vivien. "ART: 'KARL BODMER'S AMERICA' AT THE METROPOLITAN". Retrieved 2018-09-25.

-This New York Times Article establishes the presence of Williamson’s work being featured at the Metropolitan in 1985.

In regard to qualification for WP:CREATIVE, existing page content addresses the following points::“2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique(…) 4.The person’s work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums”

Williamson began to implement a new technique, airbrushing directly on photography, bringing him into contact with Daniela Morera, who featured his photo work in Andy Warhol’s Interview Magazine.[4][5] The magazine’s lighting designer Jules Fisher introduced Richie Williamson and Dean Janoff to Studio 54 co-owners Ian Schrager and Steve Rubell, who invited them to create the sets and visuals for Studio 54. This led Williamson to create the Moon and Spoon symbol that eventually become a lasting icon of the Disco era.[6]

-Williamson’s technique of airbrushing directly on photography gained his notability supported by Reference 5. "Stephen Burrows e Daniela Morera - Vogue.it" (in Italian). Retrieved 2018-09-23. Italian Vogue.

-Williamson's creation of the Moon and Spoon symbol addresses the requirement of significant and substantial work, supported by References 1, 8, and 10.

1. Gleiberman, Owen (2018-01-23). "Film Review: 'Studio 54'". Variety. Ret. 2018-09-19.

8. "Studio 54 Radio - Ultimate Classic Dance". SiriusXM. October 13, 2013.

10. Schrager, Ian; Goldberger, Paul; Colacello, Bob (2017). Studio 54. ISBN 978-0847843442.

Rachelkauffman (talk) Rachel Kauffman 20:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines, specifically the section titled, "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". I found Richie Williamson to be a particularly notable candidate for a Wikipedia page due to his consistent and verifiable presence throughout a historic time (1970s - 1990s) for the growing and expanding art scene in the Culture of New York City.

-- Rachelkauffman (talk} Rachel Kauffman 03:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your additional feedback. I am hoping to engage in a discussion regarding the categorization of this page. I am seeking to move the page from AfD into remedial action to further strengthen the content so it can adequately contribute to the global Wikipedia knowledge base.

TimTempleton (talk) As a new Wikipedia user, my understanding of the overarching goal of the open content encyclopedia is to create continuity and historical narrative where gaps in recorded knowledge exist. Wikipedia aggregates data from across the comprehensive network of contributors and recorded sources to create verifiable narrative regarding information worthy of unbiased documentation. A Google search not rendering results outside of Wikipedia is not a rigorous Litmus Test as to WP:GNG in scenarios where reliable information has not already been made readily available via an online search.

DGG (talk) please see other verifiable references utilized in addition to the NYT (including but not limited to):

Reference 5: An article published in Italian Vogue with work published by Richie Williamson and quotations about Williamson’s contribution to Studio 54. (https://www.vogue.it/people-are-talking-about/vogue-arts/2013/03/morera-burrows#ad-image261634)

Reference 6: Richie Williamson’s published work in the book: Life and Death on the New York Dance Floor, 1980-1983 by Tim Lawrence. (https://www.worldcat.org/title/life-and-death-on-the-new-york-dance-floor-1980-1983/oclc/932385980)

I recently became aware of Williamson’s work in the context of his contributions and relevance to the New York City art scene in the 1970s – 1990s. It is important to indicate that sources regarding his more recent work are not heavily sourced, as there is no bias or alternative reason for posting this page, other than to represent a missing piece of historical narrative within Wikipedia. RedditAddict69 (talk), please advise on your current status to recuse yourself from nominating AfDs due to school as mentioned on your talkspace. I am concerned that based on this information you may not have had time to comprehensively review all available sources.

I am seeking assistance with contribution of additional sources as per Wikipedia Policy “the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text”. I chose to create my first Wikipedia article in the interest of contributing to the important landscape of collaborative encyclopedic knowledge. Thank you for your attention to my contribution.

-- Rachelkauffman (talk} Rachel Kauffman 06:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So he's mentioned in various places and has popped up in various places. That doesn't constitute notability. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient sourcing. I see a few passing mentions by name but no indepth coverage. One of my personal litmus tests is whether his early life can be properly sourced, and a targeted Google search (adding Arkansas, Texas, etc. to his name for the search string) turns up nothing that can be used. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The NYT reference is a mention in a long article about current art shows. Almost all the articles is devoted to the ones that are by actually notable artists. It's not a substantial source for him, and there's nothing better. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – Yes, mentioned in NYT, but not enough of a mention to be sufficient for GNG. Other articles are promo/also passing mentions/insufficient. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Promise of Eden[edit]

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

Non-notable book Juneau Mike (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails WP:NBOOK, and is unsourced. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book meets notability guidelines or ever received the coverage needed to pass NBOOK, even taking into account that it was released during a point in time where coverage may not have made it onto the Internet. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, hasnt made much of an impression with only a small no. of library holdings, and a gsearch has brought up nothing useable, even ISFDB has nothing (ditto the author under Durchholz and Coleman). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 29 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. Tone 07:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Durchholz[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable YouTuber/author/mystic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some coverage out there for Durchholz, however the bulk of it is local, which is greatly depreciated on Wikipedia at best because papers are more likely to cover a local person or event. I don't always agree with the idea that it shouldn't be used at all, but I don't think it should make up the bulk or entirety of what's out there. The only source that isn't local is Ancestry.com, which in general shouldn't be used as a source because so much of its content is user submitted. He has been mentioned in this Peter Lang book, but I don't know that this is really enough to justify inclusion. A prior version of the article asserts that he was interviewed on the Starz network, but the only source for this is a primary one that doesn't really state what type of interview it was, if it aired, and so on. Also, while this in itself isn't a reason to delete the article, I'll also note that the article has been the focus of vandalism, possibly as a result of his Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Being a target for vandalism isn't in itself a reason for deletion, but given that the notability here is tentative at best, I'd argue that it would be kinder to just delete the article so that it (and Durchholz) is less of a target. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that I removed an Amazon link from the article, as it's generally not needed to prove the claims that he's an author given the other sourcing in the article. I also view e-commerce sites as inherently problematic as a source because it often comes across as promotional, even if this isn't the intent of adding the source. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable subject as an individual. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:58, 26 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. Tone 07:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Pwajok[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable actress sourced to non-RS and circular refs. Might be WP:TOOSOON. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is 49 years old, so definitely not WP:TOOSOON. I couldn't find sources proving that she is/was notable. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's apparently 13ish but I can't find a source on that either. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 18:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I vote for keep as she is notable for her role in The Johnsons and has received an award courtesy of her role. I have included the needed reference to this and attempted to tidy up the article. I also deleted the birthdate as it is clearly wrong at the time of page creation. Blossom Ozurumba (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Winning an award doesn't make someone notable - I won a national award in high school, it doesn't make me notable either. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I vote for keep. Susan Pwajok is a notable Teen Actress and Model in Nigeria. She's best known for her roles in The Johnsons and Nigerian comedy-drama-mystery television series Desperate Housewives Africa and has received awards courtesy of her roles. Tochiprecious (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep: I vote for keep. She is notable because of her Award as Movie Personality of the Year 2017 which was reported by reputable Magazines like Socialites Mag. Also, her roles in Tv series like:The Johnsons and other series has made her a public figure in Nigeria. --Uzoma Ozurumba (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Delete you can't base an article on a single reliable source. I have checked all other reliable Nigerian sources and found nothing. The subject is not known internationally and the awards are not themselves notable. A biography of a living person with one source where even the age cannot be verified clearly fails the requirements of WP:NBIO. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have more comments from experienced editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources do not appear to provide notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NACTOR as such. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom, as per what the other users have already said by now. She just doesn't have a single significant role to support the existance of this article, and the icing on the cake is the lack of reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:26, 29 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. This is a procedural keep per DGG. There should be no barrier to immediately re-nominating this article, but it should be nominated for a valid criteria, so the discussion can be focused properly. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Value Partners[edit]

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

Cyber attacks on network originating with information most prominent on wikipedia. Minor, non-notable article of little value to public. Please help us enhance security. Account2900 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Account2900 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep Not a valid basis for deletion. This AfD is this editor's sole contribution to Wikipedia. Edwardx (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only information here that could conceivable be of any special help to cyberattackers is the link to the firms website, From a comment there, I gather some part of thesite is not secure, but I don't see why they need to remove the article to fix that. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow keep - Nom likely has a COI, as well as the nom being SPA. Subject of article is notable. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the nominator makes any bones about being an employee, if not a senior employee, of the company so let's not keep throwing the COI/SPA tags around and deal with this on merits. They obviously have concerns which need to be replied to, not slinging tags at them. Nthep (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The information being used is beyond the website - specifically names from old newspaper articles otherwise difficult to find. When trying to trim the article to exclude this, it keeps getting added back in. I am an employee - but the conflict is easily and harmlessly disclosed. Does not detract from merit. Southwest Value Partners, as a private enterprise, absolutely does not meet Wikipedia's qualifications of notable. Please help close this loop, have some perspective from the other side, and help in eliminating this article. Anybody can pop up here, call our offices claiming to be the names, and create time consuming work for our employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.190.18 (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I'd like to point out that this information is intentionally left off of our website, as we're taking these steps not only for Wikipedia, but all mentions of the firm. You'll find similar removal of content via San Diego Union Tribune, nationwide Biz Journal Outlets, and all generally available publications. Wikipedia is a very prominent website, giving undue information to malactors. We love wikipedia and everything they do, but in this case would be grateful for privacy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.190.18 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not on the basis of this nom. Based on my search (admittedly not in great detail) I can't find much that would support inclusion in terms of in depth coverage and I think the keeps are largely motivated by this nomination being wildly outside of policy/norms (and I agree it's a bad nomination.) If I'd come across this myself without having seen this nom, I'd probably have considered AFD as well. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't come to a full opinion on this, but I do think there are serious notability concerns here. @Kirbanzo: Could you address why you believe the subject of this article is notable? @Edwardx and DGG: I'm wondering if you considered the nominator's contention that the subject of this article is non-notable when submitting your !votes? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Non-notable. Agree with @Chrissymad:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtolo (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your input Chrissymad and above. Please let me know if there is a way I can improve my request to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.190.18 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there a way for me to put in a vote to delete as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.190.18 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]
- By nominating an article for deletion, you are already indicating that you wish for it to be deleted. No need to vote again. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Thank you, Natureium, that makes sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.190.18 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)~~ [reply]
OK, I've struck out the remarks from a sock. The nominator must have felt one account wasn't enough and I'll block them as well, since obviously WP:NOTHERE--their purpose is not to improve our beautiful project. What they do want, I don't know, cause I can't figure out what they're saying. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the reliable sources already in the article, I found a 1997 Wall Street Journal article. The nominator's concern seems to be that the article gives the names of the co-founders, but this information is present in news sources (I also found this article in Arizona Jewish Life but it did not seem worth adding to the article) and is encyclopedically relevant, and I am afraid I do not understand why stating this information should be detrimental to the company. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be a bit of a contrarian it feels like sometimes Wikipedia takes too much pride in its contrarian attitudes. "Oh you want your business to have a page? We'll show you DELETE." "Don't want your business to have a page? Too bad, keep!" That said looking at the information here, I agree with Yngvadottir that the 1997 WSJ article is significant coverage from a reliable independent secondary source. I disagree that any of the remaining citations (minus the Orlando Business Journal which I can't access) are the kind that establish notability for an NCORP article. Tucson Citizen is about Carver not the company while the AZ Jewish Life is about Seldin not the company. Sentinel, Tennessean, and Nashville Business Journal are WP:ROUTINE real estate transactions of the kind we do not generally accept for establishing notability even while they are RS for the facts that they cover. Given the long history of the firm I'm reluctant to say given the basic level research I've done that there isn't a second source covering the company in significant detail but at that level of effort I haven't found it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was reminded that I had been asked to comment again. I am, frankly, uncertain about actual notability. But I think we might more reasonably have that discussed in a subsequent discussion, uninfluenced by the initial delete reason. This could well be closed non-consensus, but I think we would do better to close as a keep (with a note that there is no reason not to renominate), in order to give an unambiguous response to the original reason. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 29 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. Tone 07:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius College, The Hague[edit]

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

Yes, this school exist. But this article is so badly translated that it is better to remove it and start from scratch (WP:TNT). Facts are mentioned that are not in the sources and even personal names are translated. The Banner talk 15:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be a major school, based at least on notable alumni. I admit that I do not know Dutch, but the English translation here reads fluently, and if there is a problem with it, that IU do not perceive, it can be fixed. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- When you do not speak or read Dutch, you cannot judge the mess. The Banner talk 17:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep. Dutch is a red herring since the article is in English. Nominator seems to be on a bit of a rampage for anything connected to Jesuits. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:20, 28 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyta.pl[edit]

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

Red flag - Polish website, Polish Wikipedia article deleted from the pretty inclusionist Polish Wikipedia (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2018:04:27:Pyta.pl). I reviewed the sources - mostly mentions in passing, interviews, and coverage in minor/regional portals, some in social media. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (websites) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 24 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 05:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Rakshak[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB and/or WP:NORG. ∯WBG^converse 14:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination, not notable for stand alone article; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NWEB.[10][11][12][13] This nomination appears to be more than simply a mistake. Rzvas (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rzvas, calm down your rhetoric, a bit. I appreciate your enthusiasm but it's always possible to engage other editors without resorting to snide remarks.

The first point of WP:NWEB states The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works.

Do you assume that mere mentions of some of their (reports)/(other content that they hold) in the bibliography and/or end-notes section of a published book, means that the website itself has been the subject of the work? ∯WBG^converse 17:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly Meets WP:NWEB, since the site itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. the site has got coverage and has been discussed at NDTV, Doordarshan and a long list of print media The Hindu, Times of India, The Financial Express see the links (Dont forget to Scroll Down) at [14] and its about us page. Apart from the SIGCOV, several reliable sources source its content from this site, eg. BBC [15][16]deccan chronicle [17][18]. Looks like WP:BEFORE was lacking. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DBigXray. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 03:26, 25 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. But an article about his law firm Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP, if that is deemed notable, can be created. Sandstein 13:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Simmons (attorney)[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Looks like some US-based policitical point-scoring. Appears to be about a Democrat lawyer that made political donations, contains several heresay accusations such as "Connections former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver" and a listing of his "personal contributions". Article created by an editor that I suspect (based on the articles they've created) is working an agenda on Wikipedia. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose to article on the firm. If it is the largest mass tort claims firm, it should have an article. There is some material that obviously must be removed-, such as the campaign contributions section, which is overemphasis. Silver's conviction was overturned, but he was re-convicted upon retrial, so that material should remain, though it needs less emphasis. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the comment DGG. There is nothing to support the claim that the lawfirm "Simmons Hanly Conroy" is the "largest mass tort claims firm". In this PR release from the firm, they merely describe themselves as one of the nation's largest law firms focused on consumer protection and mass tort actions and Simmons Hanly Conroy is one of the nation's largest mass tort law firms. I am unsure if the award is notable either although it is mentioned in other articles on lawfirms such as Fish & Richardson and Cooley LLP. In any case, if the lawfirm is notable, I really don't see how much of the material in this article will be included as the focus will be on the lawfirm. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2 Also, the campaign contribution section is wholly unreliable, not to mention completely misleading in the way it is presented in this article. The reference doesn't attribute the contributions specifically to Simmons but to his firm in general. The "source" is from the Madison Record, an affiliate to the Institute for Legal Reform (another article edited by Powerhouse) which is a lobbying organization, which in turn attributes the data to opensecrets.com (doesn't exist). Another website, opensecrets.org does exist but doesn't contain the information reported. Similarly, the Sheldon Silver "connection" is incorrectly reported and is stating one argument put forward in a law case as fact, which appear to have been denied, and nothing has been reported as findings of fact in the trial. For example, nowhere does it say "John Simmons gave money to Dr. Robert Taub's clinic". In my opinion, this entire article is libellous and unsupported by sources. I will remove those parts immediately. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there's a problem, btw, with all the articles mentioning Silver. Originally, of course, they said he was convicted; then they were, correctly, changed to say that his appeal was granted (which meant that it should have been removed from some of the articles about other people just connected with him. (the appeal was granted because the Supreme Court changed the law in the interim and the judge's charge had not met the new standard). Some of the articles are still in that state. But he has since been re-convicted on the same charges. (he has of course appealed also). I will review them all today or tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, wow, that's complicated! So Silver was convicted, appealed, and lost the appeal? Or was convicted, had the conviction overturned, and re-convicted on the same or similar charges? Just bear in mind though that Silver is not Simmons. What exactly is the connection between the Silver case and Simmons anyway and why is it notable? No charges were ever brought against Simmons as far as I can see and in my opinion this article was potentially libelous with clear untruths and false assertions, making it appear that Simmons was guilty of wrong doing. The reference the article relied on is also dubious. Most of the articles appear to be either political point scoring or tabloid-like smear campaigns. I have been unable to find anything in the mainstream press on this incident with the same reporting and tying John Simmons, the person and attorney, to Silver in any direct way. It is also worth noting that Silver was a member of Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. and there's not a lot said in that article about this incident and no mention of Simmons. It is clear to my mind that the creator of this article, user:Michael Powerhouse, is grinding his own political axe and has created some terrible, biased, one-sided and potentially libelous articles that appear to have gone largely undetected for years. Having now cleaned up the content, I am of the opinion that the article should be deleted as he fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The present article is greatly sanitized. For the connections , see the version at [19]; they are indeed indirect. Simmon's law firm (and Weitz's) were among those heavily involved in a very extensive controversial series of lawsuits on behalf of those claiming to be asbestos victims. Silver was involved with receiving payments from one of the physicians centrally involved in certifying the basis for the claims, and these payments were one of the charges against him. Silver was convicted on this and other charges, appealed, & won the appeal on the basis of an incorrect jury instruction. He was then retried, with the right jury instruction, and convicted on the same charges . He has again appealed. As Silver has been for years one of the most important NYS politicians, there are extensive reliable sources for all the matters involving Silver in any way; the lawsuits involve billions of dollars, and there's extensive NYT coverage of the lawsuits & the firms and people involved. I re-read many of these sources last night, rather than rely on my memory, or on our articles. Some complication is unavoidable: both Silver's affairs and the asbestos lawsuits are complicated.

Given the conviction, the material is not libelous. (we normally treat a conviction which is in the process of being appealed as a conviction). Even without the conviction, the people involved are public figures, the charges are related to their public role, and excellent sourcing is available. The problem is rather lack of proportion.

The desire to write a series of articles on everything involved in either the lawsuits or Silver is the reason for this article. There is very clearly some bias involved in wanting such articles, but there is bias involved in trying to suppress coverage of them in WP. I think there should be an article on this person and his firm--they are difficult to separate, and it should indeed mention the lawsuits. It's only part of his/their activities though, and I don't think necessary to include much about Silver in the article. I would still say, Repurpose and rewrite properly, rather than delete . DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. I was to pick you up on a couple of points that I believe are crucially important. You say "the material is not libelous". I disagree. I am not looking at libelous content in relation to Silver but in relation to Simmons (two different people). Part of the issue is because you also say "I think there should be an article on this person and his firm--they are difficult to separate". From a legal standpoint, this is where any accusation of "libel" may start. The firm and the person are totally separate and must be treated separately as the are separate legal entities with separate legal identities. Because of this, you cannot attribute actions by the person to the firm or (as in this case) attribute actions by the firm to the person. That is the route to libel. So when this article states "John Simmons gave money to Dr. Taub's clinic" and the (unreliable) source says that "Simmons Mesothelioma Foundation gave $2,519,000 to Taub’s employer, Columbia University", that is clearly libelous. There are numerous other examples.

You also say "The desire to write a series of articles on everything involved in either the lawsuits or Silver is the reason for this article" and that does not bear up to scrutiny for two reasons. The first reason is that a cursory look at other "connected" articles does not even mention Simmons. There is nothing at all in the Sheldon Silver article. There is nothing at all in the Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. article. In fact, this article wasn't linked to any other article. The second reason is that the "Campaign contributions" have nothing to do with the Silver case. For me, it is clear that the motivation for creating this article was malicious, with the intent to harm Simmon's reputation. There is nothing even-handed, fair or unbiased in the content or reporting, and it fails WP:NPOV terribly. There should be somewhere to urgently report potentially harmful and libelous content other than AfD.

I understand you believe that Simmons is notable and the lawfirm is notable. Having looked for sources, I don't think Simmons is notable in his own right. I also don't believe we'll find sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability (but I also accept your position on how notability should be examined). HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looks like it was originally created basically as an WP:ATTACK page. After fixing that, there's not much left, and I'm not seeing WP:GNG here. The law firm may be notable, but that can be created separately as there's no content here worth saving. Marquardtika (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lawyer vs. law firm issue is something for which we need a general discussion. For some firms, doing corporate business, the firm itself is the most notable. For other firms, often like this one, those doing personal injury or criminal business, the founding or other principal attorney is essentially the law firm--its reputation depends on him as a litigator, and the others essentially support him. In a case, like here, we probably need only one article, but it isn't clear where. (There's the same problem with other enterprises where one person is by far predominant)

I do not think it clear that the motive was malicious with respect to Simmons in particular. The editing pattern shows similar focus on others, and in a variety of directions. Not all of it is in current versions. It does seem to show a certain amount of general negativity. The place to discuss such matters is the BLP noticeboard, when the target is a person, or the NPOV noticeboard. I do not normally join in these discussions, because I have found it very difficult to judge motive. We're dealing here with this article, not the editor. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BIO. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Tax and Budget Accountability[edit]

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. I cannot find any meaningful references, most are PRIMARY sources or quotations/interviews with company sources or based on announcements. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. hopelessly promotional and probably non-notable. If an article is appropriate at all , it would have to be done from scratch.
Comment - not England-related? Tacyarg (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Illinois. First sentence in the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 26 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. Tone 07:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Brain Foundation State Lead Centers of Excellence[edit]

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

The list of centers is not suitable for a separate article. The relevant policy is NOT DIRECTORY. It isn't suitable for merging either, by the same policy. Where it does belong is on the organization's web site. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. I'm not sure what a lead center is, but not one of the centers listed links to this pointless page nor to The Sarah Jane Brain Foundation, itself a promotional and unencyclopedic article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a not useful list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom that the list belong to "the organization's web site" and not here. Sdmarathe (talk) 17:50, 30 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. Tone 07:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Batista (Actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.23:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG but move to draft as I'm assuming good faith with the user who created the article. It looks like they are attempting to follow the procedure to at least try to submit this article through AfC and/or in their userpage draft. This is the perfect time for the user to become more familiar with Wikipedia policies. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and failing to meet WP:GN--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:52, 26 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. Tone 07:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Austin McConnell[edit]

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

Biography with no assertion of notability; all sources appear to be self-published or primary. Reads like a puff piece, which triggered warning bells in my head. Does not appear to meet criteria at WP:FILMMAKER. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed, but the awards and nominations suggest notability. Lazz _R 17:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain the SATO 48 is a notable award. The article itself has no references and it seems to be some kind of local amateur film festival? I'm not certain how to evaluate the Shorty Awards, other than that they exist. Do people know or care about them? Does winning one confer notability? Regardless, the awards section of McConnell's article is clearly notability-hacking. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet the requirements for notability, fails WP:ARTIST. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:04, 26 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 Three Six Zero. Consensus is that an article should not exist, but one reasonable source does exist, and a redirect to the company would be appropriate. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gillespie (entertainment manager)[edit]

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

Only a single ref looks reasonable . The first two read very much as though they are press releases.Also noteworthy that we have both socks and paid editors amongst the list of editors - not a reason for deletion, but surely if you were paid for this, these must be the best refs that are available. They don't get close to passing muster. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This should have speedily deleted as per WP:G5 anyway since Breeze897 is an obvious sockpuppet of Go Fish Digital (BurritoSlayer), although it couldn't be verified by CU because it is stale. --MarioGom (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If one ref is good, then it is worth an article. I found two other, with 2 minutes of searching. I think more could be surfaced. The above information about socks is irrelevant, as the majority of edits are normal edits, and as such is outwith process. scope_creep (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One reference is NOT enough. An the refs should be added to the article so that all editors can have the opporunity of reviewing the evidence. Claiming that notability is out there somewhere is not appropriate. The fact that the creator is likely a sock of a large promotional meat farm, only strengthens my belief that this should not be on Wikipedia. This is a material issue since the only other substantive edits have also been made by a declared paid editor (since reverted), the remaining edits have been removing promotional text and general maintenance. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scope creep: There were no significant additions to the article after its creation. Most later edits are either cleanups or COI edits that were reverted. So I think it is relevant. --MarioGom (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant. We follow policy. There is no policy to delete socked articles, once the promotional stuff has been removed and sufficient updates through the normal editing process have taken place, by the usual Wikipedia filing editors, which has happened here. It passes WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO, as additional references are available. The majority of the edits are now Wikipedia edits, with the revision history insufficiently damaged to push for deletion, re G5. So G5 and Afd are not suitable. MarioGom, you have never created any content, and clearly do not know how articles grow. The idea that it will sit there preserved in aspic is nonsense. It will grow like any other article, through consensus. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I do not really appreciate this comment: MarioGom, you have never created any content, since it is not true. But I'm certainly not fully familiar with all policies on English Wikipedia, since it is not my home wiki. Anyway, thank you for clarifying G5 relevance here. --MarioGom (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his company; there's not enough material for a separate article. . DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Three Six Zero since target already contains all relevant current content; WP:BOGOF applies to some degree in terms of trying to improve if there did happen to be amazing sourcing available but not visible; and his notability doesn't appear separable from that of his company. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the company; there's no independent notability here and the sources provide no information about Gillespie beyond "co-founder of this company". In fact, all content of the article beyond that is either unsourced or about the company anyway. Huon (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs in the article don't support notability, no refs presented here, not looking for him, promotional. Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Three Six Zero seems like a sensible WP:ATD-R solution here. Current sourcing is not substantial enough for a dedicated biographical article. Sam Sailor 00:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BOGOF. As for a possible redirect, I looked at the proposed target and ended up nominating that as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community Radio Stations in Uttarakhand[edit]

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

I don't think that every Indian state has its own Community Radio station page. Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 14:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN. Only two entries and one is a redirect. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not enough entries with articles to require a list. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 30 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) Iffy★Chat -- 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Broderick[edit]

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

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Lots of name dropping, but subject has not doing anything notable enough. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep far from being TOOSOON, the splash made by Orangutan in 2009 is TOOLONGAGO to have shown up in User:Edwardx's searches. Broderick sails past NOTABILITY, AUTHOR with the reviews and coverage that memoir generated. Page just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I VOTE TO KEEP IT! Look, I never heard of a lot of people who have articles in Wikipedia. Some of them are there just because they're related to a famous person but haven't much to write about in their own lives - yet they have a page here. I never heard of Colin Broderick until I came across this article through a link from the article on Brendan Coyle. It was crap and needed work, so I cleaned it up. It took me quite a lot of time to do so.

If anyone thinks it looks promotional now, after I spent almost the entire day yesterday looking for sources to cite --AND FOUND MANY-- then I might wonder about your sanity. You should compare what it looks like today to the previous versions before I found it. It had clearly been written by someone who knew him and made it look like a brochure, but full of typos, spelling and grammar errors, and links to ridiculous sources without in-line citations. There are over 20 sources now cited in that article, and ALL of them are there because of what I found yesterday. The more I researched, the more references to him and his works I found, in American, English, and Irish newspapers, trade publications (show business trade), etc. Variety doesn't write about just any schmuck - this guy has connections to established and notable actors and producers. He is an up-and-coming independent filmmaker, whose first film was a juried selection in four film festivals and is about to be released on iTunes. He's NOT a nobody without notability, and as I said, there are articles in Wikipedia on people who are far less notable than this guy.

I tried to make the text as encyclopedic and neutral in tone as possible and I'm willing to work on it some more. Yes, I admit I would be upset if it were deleted because I spent SO MUCH time cleaning it up, when I should have been doing other things (Wikipedia is my go-to when I am procrastinating about doing other stuff), and I know it's still not a perfect Wiki article, BUT objectively, I feel this guy has notability according to WP:GNG, and it definitely SHOULD NOT be deleted! nycdi (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sigh, the above and the page are certainly WP:PROMO, whether written by subject or by someone who loves, admires, or is paid to PROMOTE him I cannot say. There is a great deal of primary on the page, I removed a little, in the early paragraphs, and strongly advise User:Nycdi to remove everything sourced to a press release or a publisher . Here's a good rule of thumb: If it cannot be sourced to a WP:RS, it does not belong on the page. I also want to amend my statement above, the "splash" made by that first novel was in literary and Irish circles. Nevertheless, I have begun sourcing the page, and continue to see notability as an AUTHOR and FILMMAKER. Plus, WP:HEY I've added some sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, E.M. Gregory - I actually was unsure about press releases as sources, but included two, I believe. I see now that I shouldn't have. I will go back and remove those and the comments from the publisher as soon as I can. I'm still learning, after all these years. I usually just correct grammar and spelling without looking too much at the structure of a page. It's still an improvement over what it was, albeit a flawed one, but having this deletion question come up has made me look at what I did, and other articles, more closely and is helping me be a better editor nycdi (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:HEY, the article has been improved with the edition of reliable sources references and sourced content so passes WP:GNG regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:26, 28 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 Carroll School of Management. czar 04:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, promo. Just a part of the Carroll School of Management of Boston College. Not enough notability on its own. The Banner talk 09:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Carroll School of Management. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Carroll School of Management. XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Sdmarathe (talk) 06:23, 26 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) Iffy★Chat -- 10:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fraules Dance Centre[edit]

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

Non-notable dance school. Does not satisfy GNG or NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Google search returns a fair amount of international coverage in different publications on the back of twerking videos that went viral. This may not be as clear-cut as it might seem. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to say keep. It would be nice if I could speak Russian, theres lots of coverage like this but I can't tell if it's reliable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article: students of the Fraules Dance Centre filmed the video for the song of the British singer Donmonique, and Donmonique liked the video. School teacher Maria Lebedeva told the NGS News: 'Recently I uploaded part of the video in Instagram and noted the performer of the track, and she said (I think as a joke): she like it and she wants us to teach her how to dance'. And Maria Lebedeva invented this dance herself, and the dance style is called 'high heels', etc... P.S.: Sorry for my English К.Артём.1 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The dance school was featured in Russian national news several times for their videos. Furthermore the school or it's team/representatives has won or been finalists at high level dance championships for a number of years receiving coverage each time from what appear to be reliable sources. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:42, 24 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. Tone 07:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Fraden[edit]

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

BLP with no real, reliable and valuable sources (a book that might mention him and his own website) Jac16888 ^Talk 13:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It appears he has made significant contributions to technology, but that hasn't translated into attention focused on him in the sources that mention him. Largoplazo (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is not even in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Jacob Fraden who wrote the Handbook of Modern Sensors is certainly notable with more than three thousand library holdings [20] and a level of citations in GScholar that satisfies WP:PROF by a wide margin. Since this article is written in Russian, it should either be transwikied to the Russian Wikipedia or translated into English. James500 (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TNT delete- this is the English Wikipedia, not the Russian. Whether this person is notable remains to be seen (he's probably not, based on Largoplazo's research), but what's clear is that the current content isn't suitable to base an article on. If he is notable I would have no objection to blowing the article up and starting over. Reyk _YO! 10:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG and I don't see evidence to show his technical accomplishments demonstrate notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 29 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. Tone 07:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mila (company)[edit]

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

Self promotional. Seems non-notable. PabloMartinez (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly self promotion. I just restored the version prior recent promotion. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, self promotion. Pretty much only sourced to itself.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by a blocked editor, subsequenty edited by a WP:SPA Mila 2018. Much of the article, particularly the History section, is promotional in tone. My searches are not finding the in-depth, 3rd party coverage required for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 15:32, 24 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. Tone 07:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordon Myers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Extensive coverage is limited to one publisher, his hometown Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Otherwise, he gets trivial mentions in WP:ROUTINE game coverage, like a USA Today video about a slam dunk play in a game. Does not meet WP:NHOOPS from playing in Lavar Ball's fledgling Junior Basketball Association. —Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)\[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other AfDs recently closed as "delete" from LaVar Ball's league include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harrison Rieger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Kirkham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Morris (basketball), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Phillips (basketball), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleal Walker, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Hollis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isom Butler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niles Malone, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquis Johnson (basketball).—Bagumba (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another effort by anti-JBA deletionists to purge Wikipedia of all JBA players articles. In addition to the Fort Worth Sources, there is a USA Today piece, this Dallas Morning News Article, and a LonzoWire piece about him attempting to join the Austin Spurs. This may be a quality source as well. Absolutely notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable player. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are the other sources of significant coverage besides Fort Worth Star-Telegram?—Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Routine minor league basketball player, fails WP:NHOOPS. SportingFlyer talk 21:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not much coverage outside the Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles, which are all considered one source. Runningibis (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOOPS and coverage is routine and/or local. No indication that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:01, 29 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LISNR[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/OM10 with no other contributions outside this topic; the promo walled garden also contains an article on the CEO by the same creator. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks K.e.coffman. I'm in the process of cleaning up this article, getting rid of advertorial content and adding more significant references such as this Wired article: https://www.wired.com/story/when-wifi-wont-work-let-sound-carry-your-data/ -- would love your help with making sure I'm keeping things neutral, helpful, and respectful of guidelines for what I think is an interesting underlying technology. --Aptate (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Aptate has disclosed editing paid for by LISNR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve Will help Aptate clean it up. I think notability is fine, origin of the article nonwithstanding. Jessamyn (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: This is not really an improvement: diff; that's more of promotional 'cruft, cited to TechCrunch and primary sources. I also note that Special:Contributions/Aptate has been paid by the company to work on the article (as disclosed on his user page), so he should not be editing the article directly in the first place. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wired article is a mention, other sources don't have much independant analysis for WP:CORPDEPTH, being promotional and created by UPE is enough to delete per WP:NOTPROMO, WP:BOGOF and to enforce WP:TOU Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment from Aptate: I had not completed the edits I'd hoped to make, so the diff you note above is, agreed, not an improvement. I would like to provide the additional 30+ citations so that someone else can make updates to the page if I cannot, so I'll go ahead and add those to the page under an Additional Citations heading. Please note that I did not create the page or make any edits prior to my disclosure; the page does not reflect current technologies and should be updated to provide the most accurate information.Aptate (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they've actually developed something new that is getting market traction with big companies, there should be an article about them. Awaiting improvements. Jessamyn (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessamyn please don't make multiple bold !votes. Also, please read WP:NCORP, that is not a valid argument to keep the article Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, though it was relisted and we started over. I read the article. We disagree. Jessamyn (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Wired article is a mere mention-in-passing (and most of that from a connected source, a potential beta customer) and deals with this type of "data over sound" technology in general (and not a discussion of LISNR's specific technology). Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (but merge is also appropriate) - There are a lot of sources to wade through, many of which are brief mentions or articles about the founder Rodney Williams (entrepreneur). I found a few which are independent and meet WP:CORPDEPTH, including this from CNBC, NY Observer, and even Tech Crunch (note - there are a few TC articles which are the common churnalism and funding announcements, but this one doesn't fall into that category). For my merge comment, I would say there is enough information to merge this into the article on the founder should there be an appetite for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The NY Observer article has LISNR as one among five hopefuls, and the single paragraph on LISNR is dominated by the word "will" - it's all promises, or in Wikipedia terms, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. There's no notability there, just a bit of whipped-up promise to help fill up a here's-some-cool-stuff-which-might-one-day-be-big article. Sorry but that's not our job here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of promises or not, I consider it significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. If you don't, so be it.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that not all the news on them is positive as shown in this IndyStar article. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This actually kind of demonstrates that this article should be deleted, per WP:NOTPROMO - the obvious WP:UPE/promoter who created the article did not care to add such negative information; and I don't see that piece of coverage having much of a depth on the company per WP:CORPDEPTH Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you looked at CNBC link above and don't think that is in-depth? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the article almost entirely consists of quotes from the CEO or paraphrases of what he is saying, with hardly any actual analysis Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this company is not notable. A gently filtered search returns just 121 hits (despite Google's big boast of 40,000 up front, just scroll down and you'll see), and those are basically all useless. The "citations" and text in the article consist entirely of editors including at least one paid by the company talking up a newish, non-notable company; it is striking that the best-looking item about the company on Google is ... Wikipedia. There's really nothing here to demonstrate the most basic of notability, and heaven knows the bar is low enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:NCORP ,founded in 2012 is upcoming at best They raised 3.5 Million in 2014 and 10 Million in 2015 a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked over the list of Additional citations. None of them strike me as doing much to meet WP:NCORP. They're mostly routine coverage of press releases, with predictions of what the company will do in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apartment Ratings[edit]

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

Promotional article on non notable subsidiary . The references look impressive, but they do not hold up. The NYT reference just mentioned it in one sentence of a long feature , and the Washington Post article, while about this type of business, seems to entirely focused on other websites.

Written almost entirely by editor now blocked indefinitely for undeclared promotional editing DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Internet Brands, the parent company, in lieu of deletion. No prejudice against undoing the redirect if new sources are found that provide significant coverage of the subject.
Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert, nn. Szzuk (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP and per WP:DENY. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article should not be deleted because it contains information that can be merged to parent company Internet Brands.
Cunard (talk) 00:59, 30 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) 14:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newbridge Navigator[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced for over a decade. This seems a fairly minor boat with a limited production, the main thing I found in a search was sale listings. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there seems to be a big second hand market for these boats indicating notability, i also found this [21]. There may be a redirect target, if not the page could be renamed to the parent ship building company. Szzuk (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not very compelling towards establishing notability. It certainly isn’t significant coverage from a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just think there is an alternative to deletion, I don't know what it would be though. Szzuk (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newbridge Boats seems to be getting hits in google books. This was one of their models, so it could be a rename. Szzuk (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newbridge Boats Ltd built the Corribee, I'm not sure if that could be a redirect target. Szzuk (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Basic technical data on the boat can be verified at sailboatdata.com. According to this forum, there is a review of the Navigator in Which Boat? published by Practical Boat Owner but it's not online. I suspect there will be several other boating magazine pieces out there, but they will only be found in paper libraries. The existence of the Newbridge Navigator and Venturer Association can be verified from their own website, which currently appears to be dead, but can be found in the archives. SpinningSpark 14:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The archived NAVA page on the boat specification is here. SpinningSpark 14:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing against an argument that isn’t being made, that the boat exists is not in doubt. What is in doubt, as is usual in a deletion discussion, is if it has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of your nomination is that the article is unsourced, so its perfectly reasonable to reply to that with sources verifying the content of the article. You then went on to say it had limited production (as if that were an argument for deletion in any case). You have no evidence for the production run and the existence of NAVA, the owners club, shows that it couldn't be that small. Finally, you said you only found sales listings. Well all the links I gave are to something other than sales listings. So au contraire, I feel I was directly responding to your nomination arguments. SpinningSpark 20:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, delete. As long as there are no reliable sources actually cited in the article, all the sources found here are of no benefit to readers and the article still fails WP:V. And if nobody adds the sources after three weeks of AfD, it's unlikely that anybody ever will. Sandstein 19:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have identified one of my least favorite things about AFD: people claiming that the sources exist but not using them to improve the content. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, significant coverage not found online. Newbridge Boats (or Newbridge Yachts) would form an owners' association for several of their boat models,^ref including the Corribee, so the previous existence of the Navigator & Venturer Association (NAVA) does not impress me. NAVA ceased to exist in April 2018.^Ref Sam Sailor 23:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article claims that there is a city named Sufayri in the Emirate of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. A few participants in this discussion found sources confirming settlements named Sufayri in Syria and Saudi Arabia, but no one seems to have provided compelling evidence supporting the existence of a legally recognized, populated place in UAE with this name. As the burden to demonstrate verifiability is on editors arguing to keep or restore content, I'm afraid deletion is the outcome that has consensus here. Mz7 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sufayri[edit]

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

There's no such place as Sufayri in the emirate of Dubai, certainly not in the location shown and certainly not a city. An unsourced entry, it needs to go... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It's a tiny sub-community of about six houses within the Eastern reaches of the small mountain town of Hatta. We haven't broken out Dubai's suburbs, let alone Hatta's. Still suggest delete on WP:FAILN. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GEOLAND, the Hatta Fort Hotel appears to be located there. SportingFlyer talk 22:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hatta Fort Hotel is located on the Hatta roundabout, some way up the road and on the other side of the road from the location of the unremarkable Sufayri. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you using to determine its lack of existence? SportingFlyer talk 07:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This, principally, which lists Hatta but not its subdivisions, suburbs or communities - which may not even be locally signposted, depending on their size. This is a list of all settlements in modern Dubai (including Hatta). And some Google. And maybe even a little OR given I live here and am amazed to find unchallenged entries citing mountain village sub-communities as "cities in the UAE"...

https://www.dsc.gov.ae/Publication/Population%20Bulletin%20Emirate%20of%20Dubai%202015.pdf BTW, the source as far as I can tell for all these spurious entries is a 1987 American Gazetteer!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, the spellings in that Dubai Government list are pretty wild... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless uncited three-word article of dubious accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that speak of a village of Sufayri in Syria and a place called Sufayri in Saudia Arabia. The village (which is nowhere near Dubai) will be notable under GEOLAND. Completely overwriting this article with correct information about the Syrian village would be quicker and easier than deletion and recreation with new content. James500 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Geoland sets the bar very low. It is populated as noted by the nom so we're discussing whether it is legally recognised, I think so on the basis that the village is mentioned in google books. Szzuk (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk I don't see any Sufayri in Dubai, or indeed anywhere in the UAE, in GoogleBooks. Do you? If so, please provide link. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat? WHAT? It's still here? This crazy little stub about a district of a small mountain town called Hatta? Nooo! The 'legally recognised settlement' here is Hatta. Sufayri is the name of a block, an area, a district even OF Hatta. There are no signs to it, even, from the main road. It's not notable as a place in its own right. It fails WP:N; I'd argue it fails WP:GEOLAND. I even WENT THERE two weeks ago to make sure I wasn't making some terrible mistake and had missed, in my 25 years of going to Hatta, this notable settlement. It's.not.notable. Die, Sufayri! Die! Yup, thanks. That's feeling a lot better. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:19, 24 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. Tone 07:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In for a Penny (Stephen Mulhern show)[edit]

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

Nominating per WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this should have gone to PROD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:09, 25 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. Sandstein 13:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homeboyz Interactive[edit]

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

Promo. The only properly working source pictures a far less romantic affair that the original author did. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In depth profiles in The Economist, CIO Magazine, and Milwaukee Business Journal. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- An article about an affiliate in Pennsylvania January, Brandon (April 30, 2000). "In Camden, a program to shrink the digital divide". Philadelphia Inquirer. p. BR1 – via Newspapers.com. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Profile in Crain's Chicago Business Mccormick, Brian (November 19, 2000). "Job squad". Crain's Chicago Business. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Passes Notability hurdle — I've spent a bit of time adding citations and feel that this passes the minimum notability threshold. This is the version as of this comment placement and this is the diff between version nominated and version as of this writing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I cannot conduct an in-depth sourcing-search but am unsure as to whether a single Economist profiling makes it pass WP:NCORP.And, I don't think we take Business Journals as indicators of reliability but @Jytdog: ought be more knowledgable as to the criterion of our usage of biz.journals.∯WBG^converse 07:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sources that come up are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Just an advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the refs identified by BillHPike above are sufficient for this to pass gng. Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of Hope[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, should be redirected to Epoch Times PrePublic (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gu, Victor (December 2005). "Whistleblowing: The Sound of Hope for China. [Feature] An overseas Chinese radio station rekindles the hope of many mainland Chinese who try to make the truth heard". Chinascope. Global Communications Association. pp. 8–15. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  This is a nearly 3,000-word profile of Sound of Hope.
  The article notes:
  We all recognize the value of whistleblowers in our society, and often admire their courage. In reality, not all of us want to be a whistleblower for fear of possible reprisal, even when we know it’s for a good cause. Allen Zeng, a software engineer in Silicon Valley, has decided to devote his efforts to creating a business that helps the Chinese to "blow the whistle."
  The business, called the "Sound of Hope Radio Network" and of which Mr. Zeng is the president, focuses on broadcasting to China. Modern technology has made it easy to broadcast to China from Silicon Valley, despite the fact that they are almost on opposite sites of the world, and the political and social environment in the "Middle Kingdom" makes the Sound of Hope very appealing to millions of Chinese.
  ...
  The radio network is a not-for-profit organization registered in California. One part of its business is the AM/FM radio broadcasting of news and entertainment to cities across North America, Asia, and Australia. The programs are in Chinese and local languages for different target audiences. They try to offer a unique perspective on Asia and its people and serve as a bridge between Asian and Western cultures.
  ...
  Reporters for SOH go a step further than just recording call-in messages. They follow up on news leads and conduct investigative reports on Chinese events. Many eager-to-help listeners send in news leads to SOH. Some of them become reporters for SOH inside China. After receiving an important lead, the overseas SOH staff start their investigation with telephone interviews. Because of concerns over its Chinese reporters’ safety, SOH rarely asks them to do investigations on site.
  ...
  The Sound of Hope Network has enjoyed a fast-paced expansion since it was founded in 2003. Advances in technology and the growing need for independent Chinese radio broadcasting are two major factors that have benefited this new organization. Another important factor in the success of SOH is the people running the operation—Chinese immigrants who know well both the Chinese and Western cultures.
  Here is more information about Chinascope from http://chinascope.org/about-us:
  Chinascope is a media research entity that gathers, translates, and periodically analyzes Chinese-language media reporting and documents that are generally inaccessible to the West. Through its daily reports and publications, Chinascope makes important, original Chinese source material available to the many parties for whom such information is increasingly vital. Today more than ever elected officials, policy analysts, scholars, and corporations must keep abreast of developments in China. Chinascope’s candid and objective presentation allows readers to feel the pulse of PRC opinion makers. Its contents provide a unique window into Chinese policy making, official attitudes, social developments, changing perceptions of the West, and much more. The organization is based in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, and is owned by Global Communications Association, Inc., an independent, nonpartisan, 501 (c)3 nonprofit organization.
2. Liao, Tony; Wu, Sofia (2013-07-03). "ROC office rebuts Sound of Hope charges on broadcasting issue". Central News Agency. Archived from the original on 2018-09-16. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The article notes:
  San Francisco-based Sound of Hope was founded by Falun Gong supporters in 2003. It began leasing time on Radio Taiwan International's shortwave radio network in 2004 to broadcast programs to China. Much of the programming has been broadcast via RTI towers in Tainan and in Huwei, Yunlin County, but the Tainan towers were torn down in June and work on the Huwei site is expected to start in the second half of the year. A resolution passed by Taiwan's Legislature has demanded that the towers on the two sites be completely torn down by the end of 2013. Arrangements have been made for Sound of Hope Radio programs to be broadcast to China in the future via RTI's Danshui and Baozhong facilities, the statement said. The Taiwanese broadcaster has given Sound of Hope assurances that the move will not affect the number of hours it can broadcast through RTI facilities and the services it receives, the statement said.
3. Scotton, James F.; Hachten, William A., eds. (2010). New Media for a New China. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 204–205. ISBN 978-1-4051-8796-1. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  The book notes:
  Other media and cultural groups funded by Falun Gong followers include the Sound of Hope Network which originated in local Chinese radio operations in San Francisco in 2001. Now it broadcasts in five languages in 11 countries in North America, Asia, and Europe. It is also available online and can be found on short wave and satellite radio beamed into China.
4. 駱亞 (2012-06-01). 高靜 (ed.). "【歷史今日】希望之聲國際廣播電台創建" [[History Today] Sound of Hope International Radio Station created]. Epoch Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2018-09-17. Retrieved 2018-09-17.
  This article is an extensive profile of Sound of Hope. The reliability of Epoch Times has been contested in the past with editors disagreeing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 34#The Epoch Times. Both Epoch Times and Sound of Hope have deep ties to the Falun Gong group. But they were founded by different people and are operated by different companies. My view is that Epoch Times can be used to sourced uncontroversial information but should be scrutinized very carefully for more contentious claims.
5. 蔡迅; 陈志宇 (2013-12-11). "希望之声10周年台庆听众齐赞" [The 10th Anniversary of Sound of Hope]. New Tang Dynasty Television. Archived from the original on 2018-09-17. Retrieved 2018-09-17.
6. 张明筑 (2015-06-08). "希望之声遭阻传递中国真相贡献受瞩目" [Sound of Hope has been blocked]. New Tang Dynasty Television. Archived from the original on 2018-09-17. Retrieved 2018-09-17.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sound of Hope to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After checking the page history, I decided to issue a warning to the person who proposed the deletion. Because the two pages A and Special:Contributions/Fangwei make me think that there are sock puppets and disturbing facts.--Witotiwo (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed by Cunard. desmay (talk) 17:17, 28 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) 19:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Jain[edit]

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

An advertorially toned BLP for an unremarkable entrepreneur. Affiliated with a nn entity the article on which has been deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kairos Society. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is WP:SPIP, interviews, passing mentions, and other self-promotion. Has been previously deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankur Jain; has not become more notable since. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to inherit notability from leading a company if the company itself is not notable. Reywas92^Talk 23:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Ankur Jain meets WP:GNG and does not need to inherit notability. Irish Times, Entrepreneur Magazine, Inc. Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, WIRED Magazine, Fast Company and more listed on the article in question. ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: the sources offered above were largely reviewed at the fist AfD and were deemed insufficient. They are based on interviews or other self-promotion the subject was doing for the Kairos Society. The subject has not become more notable since the 1st AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Virtually all profiles of notable individuals is "based on interviews", and if we discounted articles for having an element of "self-promotion" (a highly subjective and questionable judgment) we'd have to delete articles on most celebrities. Neither of those reasons are policy-based.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evaluation of these articles in the previous discussion. ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is also a new long magazine article from The New Yorker that shows the subject has grown in notability just in the last week. That is on top of the long article from Entrepreneur magazine from August. There are now at least 5 long-form magazine articles in 5 different publications and dozens of newspaper articles to boot. ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Concerns about tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, rather than deleting it in entirety. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep–meets WP:GNG. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 11:22, 24 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. There hasn't been any attempt to rebut the sources given below as evidence of notability, and we don't delete articles because they have some promotionally toned parts. Hut 8.5 20:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baiju Dharmajan[edit]

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

promo, poorly reffed, linked to every site that has ever mentioned him Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak, G11?! ∯WBG^converse 13:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

∯WBG, I think there's a case for it, but having sent it here, I can't coherently also G11. Why not tag the article as such, or comment here to SD, and see what happens? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup to address tone and content issues – Per WP:BEFORE searches, meets WP:BASIC. Below are some sources; more are available in searches, and it's likely that additional hindi-language sources exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Hindu
Deccan Chronicle
Entertainment Times
Mid-day
Rolling Stone India
Rolling Stone India
Rolling Stone India
Deccan Chronicle

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Notable Carnatic musician who was awarded Prathibha Puraskaram (2014) by the State of Kerala, North America has already provided some very good sources to prove the notability of this BLP. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not been done by the nominator, and is against WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..... NOTPROMO is a perfectly valid reason for deletion.∯WBG^converse 12:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

off topic, but I believe its high time you should re-read the WP:G11, specially note the phrase "if it needs Fundamentally rewritten" and not minor c/e that NorthAmerica did. CSD and AfD are not substitutes for article maintenance tags. you are simply wasting AfD resources if you believe that. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, equally off-topic but fundamentally is a subjective criterion.

As DGG once sed:--Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such people write, then someone will fix it for you free, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money. ∯WBG^converse 03:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DGG is not a wiki Policy.--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, your comprehension skills need some fundamental improvement. ∯WBG^converse 06:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[22] --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like your adoration for policies, except that they are not rigid and subject to own interpretation.So, deriving from someone's argument to explain why I thing NOTPROMO is a valid standalone reason to delete content, need not me met with an irrational and patronizing reply as to that WP:DGG is not a policy.∯WBG^converse 07:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to learn to understand and appreciate the difference between a "wide consensus" based policy vs an individual editor's opinion.--DBig Xrayᗙ 09:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Segun Awosanya[edit]

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

Borderline notability. Some news sources just simply mentions him. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - passing mentions do not prove notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:BLP1E as he is notable for being the convener of End SARS a police brutality campaign against the Nigerian police. I strongly believe he satisfies that notability guideline. He was also featured on CNN with a bunch of articles from CNN about him and also covered by national news agencies. Here's a link where you can find most of the news articles i'm seeing from my end Check here ShunDream (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the meaning of WP:BLP1E? Briefly, in your words, can you kindly tell me what it means in one sentence?

Neutral: Not sure WP:10YT is guaranteed. #ENDSARS movement began a sociopolitical engagement that stirred the national polity, and probably revolutionized the way police interact with citizens, but I'm not convinced the original convener is of enough significance to the movement itself as its success and publicity was mainly due to random persons sharing their experiences of police harassment and brutality on Twitter. This is also corroborated in that, there isn't even a mention of Awosanya in the parent article. Nonetheless, the movement at its climax was so much of a big deal that people will always want to know who started it. My arguments are not strong as they are mainly based on Wikipedia essays, not policies, hence I'll sit on the fence. I'll also be fine with a redirect to ENDSARS article.HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject meets WP:BIO1E. In the CNN article cited he is described as "a leading figure in the #EndSARS campaign". The Google search already described by ShunDream above convinced me that this is not the only article. --Cyfal (talk) 13:53, 25 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. The "keep" opinions do not address the issues with the quality and level of detail of the sources. Sandstein 19:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-tendency[edit]

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

"Multi-tendency" is a term, not a concept with sufficient sourcing for us to support an independent encyclopedia article. At best, it can only be written as a dictionary definition with etymology expanded from primary sources. It lacks the depth of reliable, secondary source coverage that we would need to do justice in a dedicated article. A Wiktionary redirect to wikt:multitendency would be sufficient. czar 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 19:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

possible redirect - what about big tent? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is sourced with both a definition and history. There is room for improvement but it seems to be worthy of an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namiba (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seems to be enough information in this article for it to be contextualised, and for it to avoid being an orphaned article. Vorbee (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And where, then, is the significant coverage? Re: redirection, I still think the Wiktionary redirect is the least astonishing result over the phrase's coverage at big tent. czar 14:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NEO :"Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." this neologism lacks adequate sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 24 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. Sandstein 19:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Hollis[edit]

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

Published a book and has a blog - so what? Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies PROF with several highly cited papers (100+ cites) having 681, 360, 158, 83, 70, 41 and so on cites [23]. Book review of The Global Brand: [24]. Coverage in The Irish Times: [25]. Other coverage: [26]. There are more than nine hundred library holdings of his books: [27]. James500 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has high cite level, passes WP:PROF, also many library holdings, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Espen Gaarder Haug[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears that this may be a WP:SOAP violation. Unclear what WP:BIO standard this might meet. I have no doubt that some of the ideas Haug has had have garnered some discussion, but he is certainly no WP:CELEBRITY, notable WP:AUTHOR, nor notable for WP:PROF. Sourcing in the article seems to lack any indication that there may be something out there which provides biographical information rather than simple mention. jps (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm shocked to see that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article. Was there a process of overturning done? jps (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator on lack of notability and add that the article also appears to violate WP:AUTOBIOG. See, for example, the contributions of Green2Ocean,DrRiskMaster, GoldenPi, 88.89.96.208, and 88.128.85.173. From the history, it appears that the earlier decision to delete was never implemented. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What I see in the history is that the current version was created immediately after the old version was taken to AfD, and a week before the old version was deleted. I'm not quite sure how that happens (maybe there's a page move it's not showing me). But in any case the previous AfD was not respected. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in 1st Afd. It is instructive to look at the subject's profile on Google scholar.[28] The physics papers are free of content and supported only by self-citations. There are a few high-cited finance papers, but with an h-index of only 10, not enough to pass WP:Prof. The only possibility of notability that I see is WP:GNG ~~for the subject's success in bamboozling credulous quants with junk science~~, but I don't think this is enough. The scholar profile is strange, having several "publications" without any source. It makes me wonder if it possible to game that database. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- Google Scholar scrapes PDFs from anywhere and everywhere, leading to real oddities on occasion. XOR'easter (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is good to see someone understand how google Scholar operates. I am amazed how some others try to make a big deal out of how Google scholar also scrapes up pdf files and working papers from everywhere. Look at the top cited papers books. Papers working papers published or put out on the web last few years are for most researchers irrelevant from a citation point of view etc. I mean how do we know if a paper put out the last couple of years will become well cited or not? Many researchers put out working papers to get feedback on ideas and critics (to improve their papers long before they even try to submit them to journals), why places such as research gate and other preprint archives like preprints.org, arxiv.org and vixra.org got very popular.EntropyFormula (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is also possible to game it, for instance by claiming publications by others, replacing the bibliographic data on citations, or inappropriately merging listings of papers to combine their citation counts into a single bigger count. I don't really see evidence of that here, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is apparently possible to game the websites mentioned under "external links". He sold them the rocket equation as something new and made it look like a pure photon rocket with a high fuel to payload fraction would be realistic. --mfb (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding in-depth reviews of his books, and having only two publications that are anything like well-cited is not enough for WP:PROF. (He coauthored with Nassim Nicholas Taleb, but notability is not transmitted across coauthorship links.) His physics "work" has been rightly ignored by the scientific community. XOR'easter (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"He sold them the rocket equation as something new and " Such comments indicates lack of understanding. There is simply a reference to a paper there published in Acta Astronautica, this is a peer reviewed well respected journal. This article can also be found in a pre-print version at Cornell's arXiv.org EntropyFormula (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe wrote "The physics papers are free of content and supported only by self-citations. There are a few high-cited finance papers". Xxanthippe forget to refer also to books, the author has a book with over 900 citations, a large numbers of these (hundres) are in peer reviewed well respected journals in quant finance. It is likely one of the best known books among quants and traders that work with options. Options for professionals is a narrow field, but wikipedia is also about narrow fields, and well known names in these fields? Xxanthippe also wrote "The only possibility of notability that I see is WP:GNG for the subject's success in bamboozling credulous quants with junk science". It clearly seems like Xxanthippe for some reasons is after this profile (the wikipage has been there for ages, why this defamatory attack now?, well it seems to be a line to follow). Parts of what Xxanthippe writes can possibly be considered libellous and defamation of character. That google scholar also refer to a lot of recent working papers not yet publishes, is this what Xxanthippe use to support his non scientific Libel?

""Libel - Definition

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession." EntropyFormula (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of a very strict Wikipedia policy of no legal threats. The last part of this comment is coming close to that bright line. jps (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats has been made, this do not mean we not should be aware of what society and also wikipedia ``consider" as defamation and libel ?? so we should all keep a nice tone on wikipedia, and point as much as possible to facts, and limit as much as possible subjective opinions and false claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation. Is this really the way one should operate on wikipedia as an editor, I am again referring to Xxanthippe comment "success in bamboozling credulous quants with junk science" combined with him going in and basically just deleting most of a wikipage that has been up for many many years. And when someone come with something close to defamation we should possibly question what is their personal motives for such harsh editing and comments ? EntropyFormula (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly this comment is also interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mitquant EntropyFormula (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would EntropyFormula like to say if he has any connection with the subject that could be considered WP:COI. If so he should declare it. I have no WP:COI in the matter myself. However, I have struck through the phrase that the editor objects to. If the editor objects to the characterization of the physics papers he could seek independent opinion at the physics notice board. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I would point out that Mitquant has no edits other than those on their talk page, and their first edit was 27 September, an hour before EntropyFormula's posting above. This leads to some suspicion of Sockpuppetry. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SteveMcCluskey I must say you claims/suspicion is wrong, and it looks like Mitquant already responded to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mitquant .EntropyFormula (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will also like to return to Xxanthippe argumentation, that mostly seems to be based on populistic claims. Xxanthippe writes "The scholar profile is strange, having several "publications" without any source. It makes me wonder if it possible to game that database." I think Xxanthippe slander here shows that Xxanthippe try to cook soup on very little. Xxanthippe can go though lots of people on Google Scholars. Xxanthippe should be more specific how he think someone are Gaming google Scholar? Is it the many working papers there with only self citations Xxanthippe is referring to or exactly what is Xxanthippe referring to. Is Xxanthippe not familiar with google Scholar? Google Scholar automatically list a long series of papers, including working papers posted on a serie of working paper archives, such as research gate, and I think arxiv.org also as well as from other web sites. Productive researchers and writers tend write many papers. Many researcher (in particular when writing on narrow topics) only some of their works get cited a lot, other parts of their work not necessary cited. And when it comes to recent working papers it is very natural that they not are cited much yet by others, it can take years to get citations. Except from naturally the researcher himself/herself, if still working forward on the same "narrow" topic it is a natural thing to refer to own research when building forward on it. Xxanthippe should show evidence and not just try to come with populistic claims that he/she suspect gaming of Google Scholar. Also non of these working papers are even mentioned on the wiki page. What exactly is Xxanthippe point for indicating someone is Gaming google Scholar? that it is not allowed to write a lot of working papers? That working papers and all published papers need a lot of citations just for Google Scholar to pick them up? Do Xxanthippe really think a finance professor spend lots of time writing loads of working papers just to get a few papers with a few self citations when already a published book with more than 900 citations and paper with more than 100 citations? Possibly such academic exist, but it seems not very relevant even. It would be ridiculous only to write a lot of working papers just for the aim to get self citations in particular when it is so easy to check self citations with google Scholar. Xxanthippe seems here try to make it looks like Haug has gamed google Scholar with absolutely no evidence of it, listen again to what Xxanthippe claims "It makes me wonder if it possible to game that database." I do not think Xxanthippe is under paranoia? nor do I think Xxanthippe is a big conspiracy theorist? it is quite clear Xxanthippe use several populistic claims and drag out small parts of information and twist it into trying to ridicule someone and gain support from other editors. This so Xxanthippe can go ahead deleting something for whatever personal reasons Xxanthippe must have. This fit very well in with the view that this is very close to defamation, in particular when seen in connection to what else Xxanthippe has written, and how Xxanthippe has edited on this. EntropyFormula (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EntropyFormula, you need to read Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on personal attacks and legal threats. Short version: don't do either of those things. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:BIO1E. His "The complete guide to option pricing formulas" is well-cited but that seems to be the only claim to fame. It's not enough by itself to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is fame? we are talking about a profile known inside a very narrow topic. Is the phrase fame even very useful inside a narrow area. Still is wiki not also covering narrow fields?. Inside the narrow frame of quant finance it is naturally more than that one book. The whole point is Xxanthippe started mention google Scholar and he makes it looks like the author only have self citations this is not the case, except from his most recent papers and working papers. See also other book: Derivatives models on models over 60 citations. A paper co-authroed with Nassim Taleb "Option traders use (very) sophisticated heuristics, never the Black–Scholes–Merton formula" over 170 citations. People strongly criticizing others famous models (in well reputed published journals) will naturally have some people wanting to silence them, should possibly be taken into account when the history is written about who deleted or attempted to delete this profile? And how should people outside the narrow field of quant finance be able to judge who is known and not known in a narrow field?. A good idea would possibly be to make a long list of people listed on wiki in the field and see who should be removed and who not. Should not the burden on evidence not be on the people deleting a wiki page that have been there for very many years. Could someone specifically list why one has decided one wants to delete this profile now?. Only one seems to be under personal attacks here. It is then fair enough to point out that Xxanthippe are coming with claims that are on the borderline of defamation. And it looks like I am clearly not the only one with that opinion. EntropyFormula (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I noticed also Xxanthippe claim "The physics papers are free of content". Even the few ones published in established peer reviewed journals?. And also all the working papers? A publishing process and way to many citations in research is possibly not as Xxanthippe possibly think it is? it is not like most researcher can write a paper, get it published the same day or week and then get a lot of citations immideatley. It is more like this (for many researchers): write a working paper, put it out on the web and or possibly present it on seminars etc, get some critics and feedback, improve it, possibly do the same again several times. When quality starts to feel great consider submit it to a journal, possibly accepted, often get feedback from reviewers on need improvement, possibly new round with improvements. Then some published, then often years before the work gets known and well cited. And lots of scientific research do never get well cited. The topic can be too narrow, or as with most researchers just footnotes (but even footnotes can be important enough) in the larger scope of science. So also this claim "The physics papers are free of content" seems to be on the borderline of defamatory, or is it even defamatory? Can someone better at this tell me more about what is wikipedias policy here? I mean should Xxanthippe then not at least show to one published critics showing this, or if not so at least point out specifically why he claim so. And this statement from Xxanthippe should not be seen in isolation, but I think together with his other claims such as "The only possibility of notability that I see is [>for the subject's success in bamboozling credulous quants with junk science". . This is clearly not to do any personal attack towards Xxanthippe, this is to simply point out Xxanthippe very personal and close to defamatory attacks on a wikipedia profile. EntropyFormula (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So let us try to summarize why a handful of wikipedia editors now want to delete this wiki page

Xxanthippe claim "The physics papers are free of content" (but which one, the ones listed on the wiki page that the wiki profile evidently has written)

Xxanthippe claim "The only possibility of notability that I see is for the subject's success in bamboozling credulous quants with junk science"

David Espstien claim "The complete guide to option pricing formulas" is well-cited but that seems to be the only claim to fame. It's not enough by itself to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1.

mfb claim " He sold them the rocket equation as something new and made it look like a pure photon rocket with a high fuel to payload fraction would be realistic" did mfb understood anything written in that paper? The paper he must refer to is published in a well established peer reviewed journal. The paper clearly has a series of references to older paper on the Rocket equation so why then this very false claim that the paper present the rocket equation as something new? Is this yet another airy attempt to ridicule the wiki profile? The paper read by anyone that understand the topic even at a low level can see it is a suggested maximum velocity for matter and how that gives a ultimate limit on the Rocket equation. It is clear from the paper that there absolutely no one claiming the rocket equation as something new. And if he/she wants to criticize working papers (not even referred to on the wiki page) I will suggest he/she to come with specific critics or specific reliable references to critics.

Xxanthippe claim "The physics papers are free of content and supported only by self-citations." see comment further above on this page.

Claim by XOR'easter "I'm not finding in-depth reviews of his books" you do not have google and did not bother to google? http://www.espenhaug.com/0301_bookreviews.pdf, https://seekingalpha.com/article/110647-book-review-option-pricing-formulas-and-derivatives-both-by-espen-haug EntropyFormula (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read those. Only the former counts as reliably published, and one review isn't enough for our standard. XOR'easter (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yes then please take a look at the comments relevant to most of these claims also further up on the page! The pattern of very close to defamation by Xxanthippe is quite clear. If Xxanthippe has special motives (conflict of interest) for these attacks I suggest Xxanthippe should declare them now. EntropyFormula (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating notability is standard on WP, I don't see evidence of COI about this (especially when the editor edited many different subjects since 2007). While there exist cases of COI editors wanting to delete articles, the usual case is COI edititing to promote by creating articles (or writing non-neutral content), etc. I see that you post lengthy comments here, so I recommend simply voting keep with concise policy-based arguments (in this case to demonstrate notability), the article can also still be improved meanwhile. When replying to a WP:!VOTE above, it's also best to reply inline under that one using indentation to thread the conversation (i.e. prefixing the paragraph with *:). Care should also be taken not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion, so moderation is recommended about the size and frequency of comments. —Paleo Neonate – 14:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article isn't making a claim to significance. Szzuk (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 11:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tekken (Mobile)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable android/iOS game. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How is redirecting/merging to List of Tekken media not preferable to deletion? Regards So Why 11:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My comment above nonwithstanding, have you actually looked for sources? A quick G-search nets quite a lot of relevant RS coverage, for example:
- Fahey, Mike (2018-03-05). "Tekken Feels Weird As A Free-To-Play Mobile Game". Kotaku. Retrieved 2018-09-24.
- "Test du Tekken Mobile : un jeu à oublier". Jeuxvideo.com. 2018-03-22. Retrieved 2018-09-24.
- Low, Cherlynn (2017-08-18). "Fighting classic 'Tekken' debuts on mobile". Engadget. Retrieved 2018-09-24.
- Slater, Harry (21 February 2018). "Tekken Review". Pocket Gamer. Retrieved 2018-09-24.
- Nelson, Jared (January 31, 2018). "'Tekken' Mobile Launching in the US March 1st, Other Countries Beginning February 1st". TouchArcade. Retrieved 2018-09-24.
- Hegevall, Petter (2018-03-07). "Tekken Mobile - Recension". Gamereactor Sverige. Retrieved 2018-09-24.

Regards So Why 11:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tekken media Current article is an extreme WP:ADVERT violation combined with fancruft, and the game is only out in the world's secondary markets rather than worldwide. Nate • (chatter) 13:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UGLY, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:ITSLOCAL are all not only not valid reasons for deletion, the first two actually violate policy. The last part is not even true (see the sources cited above). Do you have any arguments not based on the current state of the article but on the potential? Regards So Why 13:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no potential; it's pretty much a copy of the game merely optimized for a small touchscreen. There isn't anything new and unique involving this version of the game (notwithstanding DLC/microtransactions). The article is pretty much the PR copied to here, which is unacceptable. Thus, a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 14:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is text that can be fixed a reason for deletion? It takes literally five seconds to remove the problematic text and leave a viable stub. Why don't you think this game is notable on it's own considering the amount of coverage in reliable third-party sources? Regards So Why 14:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources found by SoWhy, and additional ones I found below. I mean, to be clear, virtually none of it is sourced or written in an encyclopedic manner currently. But it easily could be, and AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. The nomination itself is fundamentally wrong - its meets the WP:GNG. I recommend hacking it down to a sourced paragraph or so, and then people can decide on the talk page if it warrants a page or a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In addition to the 5 that SoWhy listed, here are more sources from the WP:VG/S reliable source list that are dedicated to the subject entirely:

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/02/01/tekken-mobile-gets-release-dates-and-brand-new-character
https://www.destructoid.com/tekken-mobile-launching-this-month-military-bro-rodeo-revealed-486192.phtml
http://www.mtv.co.uk/games/news/get-involved-with-tekken-mobile-now-if-you-want-to-get-these-sweet-goodies
http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Tekken/review.asp?c=76726
https://www.usgamer.net/articles/tekken-mobile-is-out-now-in-canada Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's clear WP:BEFORE wasn't followed here. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 24 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. Tone 07:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raghavan(short film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as non-notable yet, (also advertisement). Article is new; film is new. Has no sources. Written by the producer of the movie (user blocked for edit warring) -- Alexf^(talk) 11:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its WP:TOOSOON for this unreleased short film and as the article is WP:PROMO written by the film producer, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:20, 29 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. Tone 07:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Johor[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR. Just a list of bus routes with no evidence of importance or notability Ajf773 (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Charles - Fails NOTDIR, NOTTRAVEL and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 29 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. Tone 07:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nukeateen[edit]

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

non notable band. Of the references in the article, the first is a link to a no longer existing live.com space - user created. The second is a link to a local radio show featuring music from local pub bands and the third is to an NME search of Youtube for "Teen Drive In" so just a disguised link to youtube. Google searches not finding any significant coverage. noq (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in secondary sources. Flat Out (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Attempted promotion of this non-notable band over the last few days by a now-indeffed editor still fails to get anywhere near notability. Almost all the bluelinks in the article redirect back to it – the Daisychain label they record for is not the dance label belonging to Almighty Records that it redirects to, but I suspect it might be the band's own label. They were played once on a local radio show nine years ago, and their new album has seen literally no interest outside of their social media accounts – at present the band fall a long way short of Wikipedia's notability standards. Richard3120 (talk) 16:16, 25 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. Tone 07:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Squiggles AFL[edit]

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

Orphaned article that seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Allied45 (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potentially could have been speedied in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love this site myself, but it’s not notable enough for Wikipedia as it’s only got primary sources and am not sure if we can find good secondary sources. SportingFlyer talk 17:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lot of reference "to it" but no reliable secondary independent references "about it" that I can find. It looks likes it should be notable but no.... Aoziwe (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am another person who loves the use of the site but its not really notable in terms of secondary sources for this to stay as an article here. Not Homura (talk) 12:18, 29 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. Tone 07:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radius Developers Ltd[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Routine coverage and passing mentions about the founder here and there. Nothing substantial to establish notability per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 08:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cabayi (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:27, 24 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. Tone 07:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative document review[edit]

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

A personal essay with non-trivial WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH as well as generally thin sourcing. SpinningSpark 10:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above, it's vaguely advertorial on behalf of "SmartBear" and "PleaseTech". XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the pleasetech whose of whose marketing team Sarah Holden forms half? [29]? Doubtless entirely unrelated to the user:Sarahholden who wrote this article. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely reads like an essay, not an encyclopedic article, and largely unreferenced. As noted, it does come off like an advertisement at some points. – numbermaniac 09:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an attempt at native advertising. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 30 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. Tone 07:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NONPROFIT. Article can certainly be improved, but these medical organisations are generally notable.Rathfelder (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: How? There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:NONPROFIT #2 and a GNews search for "Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists" yield only 4 hits. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I regard the World Heart Federation, The Pioneer, the US cardiology review and The Hindu as reliable sources. Rathfelder (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find one source, but that is probably "incidental coverage of a subject". Sdmarathe (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep After taking another look I find above source, those mentioned by Rathfelder and Gulf News to have established notability. Sdmarathe (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdmarathe: The source to Gulf News and including sources mentioned by Rathfelder above are all primary sources (close to an event) that provide nothing more than a passing mention and do not establish notability. As per WP:ORGDEPTH the depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability and unfortunately, there is none that setisfy either WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:NONPROFIT. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Rathfelder, World Heart Federation, The Pioneer, the US cardiology review and The Hindu [30] makes this organisation pass WP:NONPROFIT--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's very rare for articles about this sort of clinical organisation to say anything in depth about them. Have a look at a few other articles under Category:Medical associations. Apart from any other consideration, such discussion as there is is published in medical journals which are not available to the public. Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 28 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. Sandstein 19:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birtamimab[edit]

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

too early for an article. except a name (tho the structural formula is in the reference) No information provided about state of any therapeutic trials. No information about why it might be "designed for the treatment of amyloidosis" I question whether it is appropriate to have an article until there is some actual published information.

Nominated separately in case one of this group of articles might show notability DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in presumed absence of inofficial practices to keep these phantoms. Name registered + in development seems a mite too early to have an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Amyloidosis, since it is related to that. Leo1pard (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Development has been halted, so it is unlikely that more information will become available. Natureium (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a merge is inappropriate--we do not merge al lpossible not yet approved medicines to a medical condition. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 29 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 speedy close. The first AfD is still live SpinningSpark 10:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Rugby League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not the official National governing body for the sport of rugby league football. The only recognised body for rugby league is the Rugby league International Federation. C0c0nutzg (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close: An AfD discussion on this topic is already in process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Rugby League: multiple discussions merely add to confusion and AfD workload. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 24 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. Sandstein 19:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gancotamab[edit]

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

too early for an article. except a name (tho the structural formula is in the reference) No information provided about state of any therapeutic trials. No information about why it might be "designed for the treatment of cancer" I question whether it is appropriate to have an article until there is some actual published information. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in presumed absence of inofficial practices to keep these phantoms. Name registered + in development seems a mite too early to have an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, since it is related to that. Leo1pard (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Merrimack. With development halted, it's not likely that there will be any more information to write an article with anytime soon. Natureium (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

&Commment Not appropriate for a merge unti l it becomes an accepted drug. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could be interpreted as promotional as well as non-notable. Deb (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Aberg Robison[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Survived VfD in 2005 by way of a no-consensus closure. We've since developed WP:NPOL and WP:GNG which this woman fails. Cary, North Carolina is certainly not a big enough town to grant a presumption of notability to council members, and there aren't enough non-local sources about this woman to justify keeping the article under GNG.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marla Dorrel (2nd nomination), running concurrently and also kept in 2005. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the mayor of Cary would not be default notable, members of the city council even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL/WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 15:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors receive an automatic presumption of notability only if they serve in major, internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Chicago, Toronto or London — outside of that narrow range of cities, city councillors are deemed notable only if they can be reliably sourced well enough to qualify as special cases of significantly greater and more nationalized notability than most other city councillors in non-global cities But this is referenced to just one glancing namecheck of her existence in a local newspaper article that isn't about her to any non-trivial degree, which is not the type or volume of sourcing it takes. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 25 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. Merge is possible as well. Tone 07:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Arminian[edit]

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

The subject doesn't appear to clear WP:GNG or WP:NNEWSPAPER. Other than sharing a name with the more significant Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, it doesn't appear to have a claim to notability, and while the article appears to imply that these two publications have editorial continuity, no evidence in the sources cited confirms this. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry if the article seemed to imply editorial continuity with the earlier magazine. To remedy that, I have added the following sentence to the article: "The Arminian does not have editorial continuity with Wesleyan Methodist Magazine." Mksword (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this is an appreciated change that improves the article, there still remains the matter of demonstrating notability, as neither of the sources given for the article are independent of the subject, and thus cannot be considered reliable sources for establishing notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. or merge to its sponsoring movement. There's no reason for actual deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 28 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Hazmat Life Support[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A single short program at a single university. Way below our usual standards for notability. No significant third party sources DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single, specialized, three-day course offered by a single institution. No notability outside of its sphere and few mentions that are not self-produced or self-referential. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Long term promotional entry. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but clean up. This is not a single course at a single institution - it is available in many countries. It is notable as the only course of its type in the world and is used by several medical specialties. It is similar to Basic life support, Advanced cardiac life support, Advanced trauma life support etc. GeneralBelly (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely promotional, no indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Covert promotion. Lacks independent sources both in the article and in search. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:27, 26 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. Tone 07:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tayva Patch[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The obituary coverage is enough to put her over the top for GNG. She also clearly had multiple significant roles in notable films, so that also puts her over the top for actor bios.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has some prominent roles in notable productions and has coverage in reliable sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article really needs more references for making the article look notable without a doubt. As for this AfD, the subject passes WP:GNG. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:55, 30 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. Sandstein 13:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Lemberg[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Brief mentions and quotes . Who considers the subject "prominent" is not explained, neither is the claim that he is known for "pioneering" lawsuits supported by any of the sources. Vexations (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the original poster, and while he's not a judge nor politician, there are several national media article which cite him, a Fox News tv interview which featured him, he had the first self-driving car lawsuit, is quite active in consumer rights lawsuits, and was fleetingly mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rightscorp I removed the terms "pioneering" or "prominent", and added 2 refs, maybe those will help. I look forward to hearing other votes. Randfal2 (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This article needs a lot of work, but I do see how it can be considered notable. Depending on the outcome, maybe it could be moved to a draft to be fixed up? Handoto (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lawsuit about the autonomous cehivle is perhaps notable , but notthe lawyer in the case. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Nothing says the lawyer meets the NOTE guidelines. Springee (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable attorney who's article can be expanded some more with the sources like law.com, reuters.com that prove him notable. Sdmarathe (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:38, 24 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Carroll Companies[edit]

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

Subject is a private real estate developer and property management company. Sources provided are listing, a merely passing mentioned or about the owner. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV of WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's some routine coverage in local sources, but nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, correct, fails Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH and NCORP/GNG. Sam Sailor 22:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Frank Brennan (priest). Nose-count says delete, but WP:ATD says otherwise. I'm not going to make a merge part of the consensus, but I am going to redirect and leave the article history intact. Anybody who wants to merge material is free to do so on their own, per WP:BOLD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uniya[edit]

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

fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds like it could be notable on the basis of the article text, but it's basically unreferenced and I can't find any useful sources, period. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources through Google, Trove or ProQuest... Cabrils (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Frank Brennan (priest) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:09, 30 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. Tone 07:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cruiser 'Varyag'[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not appear to have received notable coverage in English or Russian. Links in the article have only a mention of the film, there is no detailed review of the film.--RTY9099 (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge. There is some easily discoverable coverage in reliable sources without even looking into academic papers and Russian-language sources (e.g. [31]), so it should at worst, be merged into the director's page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Won an award called a Stalin Prize. James500 (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stalin prize is significant. Sources do exist for this in English - e.g. [32] [33] [34] and it seems likely more sources are available in Russian. Merging to Viktor Eisymont would seem a bit odd, though possible per ATD, but I think this meets GNG on its own. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown above so merits a stand-alone article, passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NFILM#3, being a recipient of the 1947 Stalin Prize. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shermco Industries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet NCORP. Almost all the references are straight PR DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; wikipedia is not a replacement for a corporate website nor a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Development Strategy Center (Uzbekistan)[edit]

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

Nominating for AfD as the result of a discussion here.

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE due to the non-independent nature of press in Uzbekistan vis-a-vis organizations affiliated with the government. The article is also written in a WP:PROMOTIONAL manner. Rosguill^talk 23:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A topic which would be notable in many countries but for which no reliable sources exist owing to the issues raised by Rosguil. Ultimately we're limited by sourcing and so despite some reluctance over the possibility of under-covering oppressive countries (especially those who do not use the Roman alphabet) I think this is a delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Pinged to this by this discussion[reply]
Delete Per nom, not enough independent sources for placement on the en.wiki, esp. with it being so new. Pinged to this by this discussion ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a wholesale reproduction of the one existing on the Russian Wikipedia, which isn't immediately a problem if you don't count the sources provided, where one sees that the article falls short of meeting WP:ORGCRITE, with the only category possibly met with all the sources being "Significant coverage". But that coverage is not from independent sources, as it appears to be documents authored at sub-committee workshops and/or drafting sessions which existed when this group was being formed. I shouldn't engage in speculation but if Earwig's copyright detector worked with Cyrillic languages my guess is that its findings would not bode well for the article's originality (but that's just my opinion). I also agree that WP:NOTPROMO is being disregarded here, as well as WP:NOTJARGON, as the article is dominated with language used by policy wonks. Spintendo 03:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 07:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavi Patil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails all the criteria of notability criteria for actors. Most of the mentions are from gossip-like sources. Whatever mentions from reliable sources are, are just passing references, or "second hand"; mostly about the films the films that she is in. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, thus failing general notability criteria as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as does have some prominent roles but a number of the productions don't have articles, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: none of the roles seem to be prominent. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

found BaapManus and this Draft:Boyz 2 where she has prominent roles, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: only in BaapManus she has a prominent role. Not in the Boyz 2. In any case she fails WP:NACTOR. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Before nominating, I also thought the same. But there is no WP:SIGCOV, and she doesnt have enough prominent roles (only one role in a TV serial), thus failing WP:NACTOR. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR is an entirely different standard. Irrelevant to my claim. From checking the online sources, she passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator is blocked for socking per this SPI casepage. There ~~are very high chances~~ is evidence that this is a case of paid editing. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After considering what was said up to now, this is a keep. In any case WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG are not mutually exclusive. Yes she fails WP:NACTOR but has coverage on the other side. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In a nutshell: to pass WP:GNG, the subject must have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. This subject doesnt have this. Could anybody please provide reliable sources that cover the subject significantly? —usernamekiran(talk) 08:38, 30 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. Hut 8.5 21:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kholud El Nemer[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are brief articles (fluff pieces) or interviews. reddogsix (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just do not see her notability here. It says she moved to several TV channels, but does not mention not a single one of her shows or programs. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:43, 24 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. Hut 8.5 21:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Shah[edit]

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

Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. fails to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 00:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: at first I thought the depicted shrine contained the subject's remains, which might have hinted at some notability. Turns out he was but its local priest or caretaker if you will (shrine's Facebook page). Considering the shrine's location in a small Punjabi village (Chakori Bhalowal), I think it is unlikely WP:GNG will be met any time soon for one of the shrine's priests. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rush (band). (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fear (song series)[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NSONG. SummerPhD^v2.0 17:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, every song (or series of songs) that exists is not automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article — but the referencing here does not consists of reliable sources that would properly support notability under NSONG, as it's "referenced" entirely to the band's own self-published discography and tour calendar and fan club newsletter on its own website, rather than any evidence of media coverage about the songs. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make songs notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Rush. Vorbee (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: are you sure? Rush is a disambiguation page. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant Rush (band). Vorbee (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rush (band). I had a look at their discography page but this is a series of songs that wouldn't really fit there. Szzuk (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Care Air Transport Team[edit]

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

essentially the internal history of a separate small component of the US military medical system . Not appropriatef or a separate article. No third party references. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in-depth book coverage easily found;
- A Legacy of Lessons Learned: Landstuhi Regional Medical Center During Wartime, 2001-2014 has a 13-page chapter on the subject
- Combat Casualty Care has a 4-page section on the subject
- Recent Advances and Future Directions in Trauma Care includes a 14-page article largely about CCATT

Much of the history of the unit can be found in these sources, so I don't think the article is problematic for verification. SpinningSpark 09:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple book citations added. I have not had time to look in-depth at the 491 hits on Google Scholar that the phrase "Critical Care Air Transport Team" returns. Sam Sailor 14:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets GNG per a source review. Below are additional book sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nurses After War
Emergency War Surgery

Keep per WP:HEY. The sources added to the article by Sam Sailor and additional sources found by Spinningspark and North America are enough to convince me we have reliable sourcing needed to satisfy WP:GNG and upon which to write an article. Nice research work, all. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astalli Centre JRS[edit]

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

(Note: I started searching on the Italian name, as the English name bears no relation with that name) Fails WP:GNG, promo. No in depth sources about the work but a lot about visitors. The Banner talk 09:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't read Italian, but I'm not opposed to WP:SOFTDELETE — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:42, 24 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. Sandstein 12:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Choudhury[edit]

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

Promotional. Most of the sources in the article are brief mentions, often in the context of her tour-guide company (also nommed - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovedesh). Not much more in BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely promotional, fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She got notable award. Niloy ^{(keep talking)} 14:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Altaf (talk) 18:35, 30 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. Sandstein 12:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selina Begum Ali[edit]

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

Islam teacher. Sources are deadlinks, organizations she's associated with, and a Ramadan interview on BBC Asian radio. In BEFOREing I see a few scant mentions as one of many signatories. See also her husband Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahimul Anam Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like being named religious advocate of the year at the 2018 British Muslim Awards might be enough to establish notability (or at least help contribute to notability). [35] IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Not enough source. Most are same soruce. Niloy ^{(keep talking)} 14:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Altaf (talk) 18:36, 30 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 ATK (football club). (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 08:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ATK Reserves and Academy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is a WP:TOOSOON case, the club has not played yet and was founded 32 days ago. Also, they have only signed 4 players according to the article. Can be merged into ATK_(football_club). » Shadowowl | talk 14:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ATK_(football_club). A short section at that article is the best solution at the current time. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ATK (football club), as an alternative to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SshibumXZ (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC); edited 01:01, 27 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. Only one user arguing for keep and their rationale is not convincing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AS-PL[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Has unsourced claims about being the largest supplier in Poland and being a leader on the worldwide aftermarket. Sources are mostly mentions. Article uses ref fraud, source 4 does not mention the company. » Shadowowl | talk 14:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have changed the indicated errors described by Shadowowl Monrobang2017 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We recommend to save the site on wikipedia, all the mentioned errors have been corrected and now the site meets all the conditions of wikipedia Monrobang2017 (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Monrobang2017 please explain who you mean by "we". Have you a connection with this company? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional and fails WP:SPIP, I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer HighKing Through "we", I have thought about my several friends. This is our hobby to introduce new articules to Wikipedia. I (we) have no connections with this company.Monrobang2017 (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response If you have a WP:COI you should disclose it properly. You have also promoted this company on Polish-language Wikipedia and you have uploaded the company's logo and other corporate images on Wikimedia. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer I don't have WP:COI.The fact that I entered the company on the Polish version of Wikipedia is because I also live in Gdansk as AS-PL, and I am a big fan of automotive and aftermarket industry and this is my hobby. That's why I added this entry to the English version of the site. I do not understand what the problem is and why the brawl about me is? As I wrote before the entry has an objective nature and preserves encyclopedic principles, it is not an self-promotional artiule.Monrobang2017 (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response Sorry but that story is simply not credible. You first created this article on the polish-language Wikipedia in 2017 and you haven't created any other articles on any other companies in this field, despite you saying that it is your "hobby" and you're a "big fan"? That, coupled with your comments on the Polish-language Wikipedia on 10th October 2017 (where you also you "we" and display an impressive knowledge of this organization) leads me to this conclusion. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Answer In my opinion, this discussion is starting to lose its meaning. Because, I clearly wrote why the entry was found here. Whether do you believe with this or not, it's doesn’t matter. Last year I have just started my adventure with Wikipedia and I started with the entry of this company. Is something wrong with that? So what, that I have knowledge of the organization? I’m using Internet and company website, hence I have knowledge, everybody can do this. It’s easy. Where can you see any elements of the self-promotion on this entry? This is a normal encyclopedic entry with no self-promotion elements. Let's concentrate on the facts, i.e. the entry complies with the rules of Wikipedia, has an objective character, preserves the style of the encyclopedia, and does not contain any elements of advertising or self-promotion. Everybody already knows your opinion, let’s give a chance for other users to discuss on this matter. Have a nice day.Monrobang2017 (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response OK, lets put all that aside and I'll WP:AGF. I'm sure you'll accept that from history and experience of past editors, those that have only focused on a single company article and use language as you have done, both here and in on Polish language Wikipedia, tend to be either paid editors or editors with a COI. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Answer OK, using the WP:AGF . I would like to ask for your tips on how I should improve this article to remain him on Wikipedia?Monrobang2017 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry has an objective nature and preserves encyclopedic principles, it is not an self-promotional article. The references in the footnotes refer specifically to the company.Monrobang2017 (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note this editor is the creator of the article here and on the Polish-language wikipedia. The account appears to be an WP:SPA with the sole purpose of promoting this company. The editor also appears to have an undisclosed WP:COI. The editor has uploaded the logo and other corporate imaged to Wikimedia. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]
- Response There are no indications of notability available. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. This sdcm article is a simple listing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Similarly, this worldsecuresystems reference is a simple listing of the company's membership in the IAAF and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This next worldsecuresystems reference is not intellectually independent as it relies on a company announcement and makes extensive use of material provided by the company and quotations from various company officers. This fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this motofocus reference is trivial coverage a non-notable award won by the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer OK, using the WP:AGF. I would like to ask for your tips on how I should improve this article to remain him on Wikipedia?Monrobang2017 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response Hi Monrobang2017, please locate at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability (see WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH, and once the topic is shown to be notable, this AfD will result in Keep and you can focus on improving the article content. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Answer Hi HighKingThank you for your help and your tips. I tried to improve, please check is it good now. Monrobang2017 (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Monrobang2017, none of the references are intellectually independent as they are based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Hi HighKing, I resigned with the references because I can't find the intellectually independent on the Internet WP:ORGIND.Monrobang2017 (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirada[edit]

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

Non-notable company. This company is also very small with a market capitalisation of less than £2 million Uhooep (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a company, created and developed by WP:SPAs. The article text is effectively setting out the company's wares, supported predominantly by references to their own website, along with some routine announcements. I am not seeing sufficient coverage for the WP:NCORP criteria. AllyD (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP. I cannot locate any sources that meet the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 26 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) 18:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Visitor from Another Planet[edit]

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

Only three reviews mentioned, the third (TV Fanatic) fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more reviews/recaps/other coverage can be found if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs)

@Matt14451: Please sign your posts. -- Alex^TW 06:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Den of Geek - http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/supergirl/38679/supergirl-episode-11-review-strange-visitor-from-another-planet. Paste Magazine - https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/01/supergirl-review-strange-visitor-from-another-plan.html. Nerdist - https://nerdist.com/supergirl-recap-strange-visitor-from-another-planet/ Matt14451 (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article are those sources? Every television episode gets reviews - what separates this one? (And just a heads up, make sure you're logged in so you don't double vote. Cheers.) -- Alex^TW 00:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to this discussion at all? Don't personally attack. Those sources aren't in the article, hence why I posted them in response to the OP saying there's only three reviews.Matt14451 (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Always sign your comments when you post them, there is no reason not to. Thank you. And again: Every television episode gets reviews - what separates this one? -- Alex^TW 06:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has reviews, therefore proving notability. Not every episode of every TV show has as many reviews.Matt14451 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews do not equal notability, especially only a mere three of them. All episodes have reviews. So again: Every television episode gets reviews - what separates this one? -- Alex^TW 06:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's not "a mere three of them" though. There's three in the article and I linked an additional three making six. Why are certain episodes only allowed articles, it is notable regardless of other articles. Matt14451 (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews do not equal notability. All episodes have reviews. -- Alex^TW 07:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all TV show episodes have reviews, especially not six from reputable outlets. What else proves notability? Matt14451 (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read GNG and further understand Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. -- Alex^TW 07:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just read WP:GNG again. There are six secondary sources that are from unique publications and authors. Notability is proved. Matt14451 (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect Unnecessary article. -- Alex^TW 06:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - other coverage, agreeing with Matt14451, some covering real-world politics and character reveals/reversals. Might want to add to other lists like the other Supergirl AfDs. StrayBolt (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As already said, this has notability and reliable sources to stand on it's own. Not sure why any of these Supergirl episodes have been nominated recently. Should be as closed as with other AfDs. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just noticed that many other Supergirl episodes were nominated for deletion for the same or similar reasons, all were closed with the consensus being to keep them. There's nothing different about this AfD than all the others. Matt14451 (talk) 10:44, 29 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) 14:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roksana Ciurysek-Gedir[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Connorcp (creator) with the following rationale "(sourced additional content)". While new sources are always good, I am afraid they fail to address my concerns. This article is still based primarily on two interviews, and few mentions in passing/press releases/resumes/self-published sources. I don't think the subject is notable as an artist, or a businessperson. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are very minor or passing mentions or biographies. I removed one that was a Shopify shopping site. Fails notability tests.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with flying colors. Added a Forbes reference written about her when she returned to Poland after a 20 year career in finance in London. She attracted media attention at a fairly young age and it has continued because she is someone interesting to read about with her career in both finance and arts. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 03:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- When your best source is a WP:INTERVIEW, we are hardly talking about flying colors. Since most of that article are her quotes, with a spattering of quotes of her friends and coworkers, I think this is not a very good source, sorry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Clearly not a very notable individual, but I think this person scrapes through. There are couple "reasonabl-y" looking Polish language sources available for her in addition to the ones already listed. As the nom points out, none of these sources are particularly "high-quality", but I think this might be a place that quantity makes up for lack of quality. NickCT (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No highest-level positions in banking; no major exhibitions or works in museums as artists\ " someone interesting to read about with her career in both finance and arts." is meaningless unless at least one of the careers are notable . There are some interviews , none of which are usable as a RS for anything, since she says whatever she cases to. All that Forbes reference shows is that she has a Press Agent. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom and DGG.Fails WP:GNG.Upcoming at best.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a specific outcome has occurred herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Ashfaq Hussain[edit]

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

Authors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Subject has written some non-notable (at least by WP standards) books and Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources, thus fails both WP:AUTHOR and GNG. Saqib (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He received coverage for his writings but it is not a significant one. Rzvas (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the OP is correct in saying the author isn't notable in this case, but there is substantial coverage of the book, which seems to be about the mismanagement of Pakistani policy during the Kargil war: [36], [37], [38], [39]. We could consider renaming and reworking this into an article about the book. Vanamonde (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow discussion re: Vanamonde's proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR due to significant critical attention. This Colonel is notable for his book Witness to Blunder: Kargil Story Unfolds Colonel has got significant coverage in Pakistani and Indian mainstream media both print and television. NDTV,[40] ABP News, Geo TV (talk shows and news channels), Newspaper Dawn[41], India today[42], Rediff news,[43] Tribune India,[44] Tribune Pakistan[45] to pass GNG. There are only a few books written on Kargil wars by "Pakistani military officers". This author being one of them. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. If anyone wants to create an article about his book then start a new article. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil your !vote only quoted a policy and did not explain why it fails. without a valid rational, such "votes" are disregarded by the closing admin. I have clearly explained that Section 4C of the WP:NAUTHOR has been satisfied along with GNG. moreover he is a senior Military officer. Kindly reconsider your vote.--DBig Xrayᗙ 10:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per DBigXray and per WP:AUTHOR point 4C as his works in particular his book "Witness to Blunder: Kargil Story Unfolds" has won significant critical attention. Has a weak claim to pass WP:SOLDIER point 8 he was a senior officer in the Pakistan Army's media arm Inter-Services Public Relations and part of its ISI's analysis wing during the Kargil Conflict.BBC does quote him during the Kargil Conflict BBC World: South Asia Indian army sweeps for mines and may in combination pass WP:GNG. As per this ,this ,this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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