Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 September	5 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StudyPool[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/Olurteilanru with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:SIGCOV. Nothing remarkable here and WP:TOOSOON to warrant its own page. Marquardtika (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 22:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, mostly failing ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and CORPDEPTH. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Postmortem (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Appears two times according to Marvel Wikia. Is described as an enemy of Blade, but Blade (comics) doesn't mention him. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: P. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A straight forward failure of both WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. No reliable secondary sources, and too trivial to merge. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources and insignificant within the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant and not worth merging. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polestar (comics)[edit]

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

Characters are not notable. The two Polestars occur (according to Marvel Wikia) six times and once, respectively. The article is linked by two non-link non-disambiguation articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 22:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: P. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A straight forward failure of both WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. No reliable secondary sources, and too trivial to merge. --Killer Moff (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources and insignificant to the fiction. Upon review of the two incoming links, I removed one as inconsequential to a bloated plot and the other for being unsourced and vague. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Too minor to merge. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears eleven times, according to Marvel Wikia, and the page is linked in the body of one article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 22:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: P. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A straight forward failure of both WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. No reliable secondary sources, and too trivial to merge. --Killer Moff (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources, insignificant in the fiction. Upon review of her mention in Havok (comics), I removed the inline link as an inconsequential event in a bloated plot summary. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Too minor to merge. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is a valid option too —AE (talk • contributions) 14:34, 11 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) 05:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Ranger[edit]

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

Character is not notable. Appears four times according to Marvel Wikia, and is linked in the body of one article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 21:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: P. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A straight forward failure of both WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. No reliable secondary sources, and too trivial to merge. --Killer Moff (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The one incoming link is from Scourge of the Underworld, which includes this description:

"Writer/editor Mark Gruenwald originally created the Scourge in 1985 as a plot device intended to ... eliminate[e] those supervillain characters he deemed to be too minor, redundant, or ill-conceived."

Who am I to argue with Mark Gruenwald? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not worth merging. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per KM —AE (talk • contributions) 14:33, 11 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Canyon[edit]

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

Failed television pilot that went to air as a one-off special, but never got the range or depth of reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:NMEDIA on that basis. While this has the notability claim of having won Leo Awards, those are a regional film and television award which is not nationally or internationally prominent enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on a production that doesn't otherwise have the media coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but the only sources being cited here are blogs, not reliable sources, and I can't find any other reliable source coverage anywhere else. It also misrepresented one of its references as being TV Guide (Canada), which it isn't — it's a one-person WordPress blog operated under the title "Complete TV Guide", unrelated to the (defunct) real magazine. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are no reliable sources then we don't have much to talk about. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm (comics character)[edit]

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Appears six times according to Marvel Wikia and is linked in the body of one article. Too minor to merge. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 22:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: P. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A straight forward failure of both WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. No reliable secondary sources, and too trivial to merge. One storyline does not create anything near notability, without other sources. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought about redirecting to Hellions (Marvel Comics) since it had some info on him, but the brief description includes this gem: "His head is shown being used to infiltrate Beast's files." I'm sure this makes sense in context, but I can't support directing readers to something like that. I'm picturing a goon using Paradigm's head to open a file drawer, and hilarity ensues as he tries to get the nose into the handle just right... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth merging. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best option —AE (talk • contributions) 14:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need of a merge. Lorstaking (talk) 04:35, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube-dl[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Previously PRODded, but subsequently unilaterally restored by an admin. wumbolo ^^^ 20:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is quite some coverage in non-English sources. I think it is as notable as the other articles on this list. Changed to Weak delete per FenixFeather-- » Shadowowl | talk 21:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage in non-English sources is primarily how-to articles written by bloggers. Fails WP:GNG even considering them. Article as is relies entirely on primary sources. The other articles on that chart should probably be looked at too. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next Pakistani general election[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG so delete per WP:TOOSOON Saqib (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: we are not exactly certain that the election will be held in 5 years seeing as the government currently has a slim majority so new elections could be called either voluntarily or involuntarily. Even then, precedent on other countries election pages show that the page for the next election is already created as soon as the old election is finished. For example, Next Turkish general election, Next United Kingdom general election and Next German federal election were all created not too long after the previous elections were finished. As per these reasons, I oppose deletion. маsтегрна таLк 21:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't say that TOOSOON applies (most countries can be very confident on it), and while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make a good basis for sourcing etc claims, things like this it isn't unreasonable. Given the various things that could full under it (have a look at its counterparts) then it's easy to come up with sources, though in its current form it would be difficult. It's a little odd since the article's remit is more flexible than in most articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, generally these articles turn into redirects once the election date has been officially finalised. See Next New Zealand general election per example. Ajf773 (talk)
Speedy keep No problem with articles like this, and we generally have them quite soon after the previous election was held. Number 5 7 20:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Nuber57. We could also put the opinion poll. --Panam2014 (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There currently aren’t any opinions polls so this is definitely too soon маsтегрна таLк 17:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOSOON applies here. Saying that the government is weak is not something that would allow the article to be kept. Keep The democracy in Pakistan is unreliable, we can never be sure about the exact elections date. And I agree with Masterpha. Knightrises10 (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightrises10: the democracy is unreliable : it is for that if it is the case, the elections would be held before 5 years. And after 1999 coup, the elections have been held in 2002, 5 years after 1997 elections. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking over it, I think there is no harm in keeping the article. You are right. Knightrises10 (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per precedent. Störm (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Ariffin Nik Omar[edit]

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

Fails GNG. ∯WBG^converse 10:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 11:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN as Prisons Director General (Director General of Prisons) of Malaysia (The Straits Times, 6 September 1989; eresources.nlb.gov.sg). [1] Also called "Nik Ariffin bin Nik Omar". [2]. James500 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN??! Unless, you wish to claim that Director-General-of-prisons is a non-executive & political position.∯WBG^converse 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Is there a reason this came straight to AfD instead of going through the WP:BLPPROD process? I currently lean towards suggesting deletion for the simple fact it is an unreferenced WP:BLP, but would reconsider if sources were provided. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~unreferenced WP:BLP~~ Not alive, but plainly fails WP:GNG and the position is not one which gives de facto notability under WP:NPOL or any other criteria. SportingFlyer talk 10:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course very senior officials like the head of a country's prison system are notable. Common sense. I have added a reference to confirm that he did indeed hold the position. How hard would it have been for the "unreferenced BLP" brigade to do this? Took me all of ten seconds to find a ref on Google. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, how hard would it be for the of-course brigade to claim their fact? It's plainly delusional that every top-tier-executive of a country is notable........∯WBG^converse 12:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll notice if you reread what I said above (and look at the article again) that I did! You think it's delusional for the head of a major country's entire prison system to be considered notable? Especially when we have articles on every minor celebrity who appears briefly to warble a tune, shoot their mouth off on YouTube or kick a ball around a field. The "logic" of that frankly beggars belief! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see the guideline that says so, and if you can't find one, I certainly think you'd need more than one primary source. SportingFlyer talk 19:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It confirms he held the position and the position is clearly notable. Do we really want Wikipedia to degenerate into a collection of articles on minor celebrities who've been dribbled over on the internet for a few months while ignoring people who have held very senior positions but who aren't so "interesting" to the fanboys and girls who dominate social media? I certainly don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, you need to read that other shit can exist.No SNG supports your stance that all top-tier executive positions are default-notable, shall they be verifiable.If you wish for such a guideline, it's thatway. ∯WBG^converse 17:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you probably need to recognise how long I've been here before you suggest I read things that I've been familiar with for years. Otherwise you could appear to be patronising. It's common sense that supports my position, not some rule, since, as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is not bound by rules. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Is probably notable, but only has 1 source. There might be more in offline sources. Changed to Delete, [3] [4] [5] is all I could find » Shadowowl | talk 20:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that single source is also primary. There's no automatic notability for any leader of a prison system - not under WP:NPOL certainly, and I'm not sure under what other grounds. If he's alive, there are also WP:BLP1E concerns. SportingFlyer talk 19:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly doesn't qualify under BLP1E in any way. What is the "one event" he is notable for? He's notable for having a notable career, not for one event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased in any case. Added a couple more sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even after that, none of the sources in the article are WP:RS. Now two are primary and one is from a genealogy website. SportingFlyer talk 18:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government websites are most certainly considered to be reliable sources for confirmation of the holders of government positions and their careers. We have never held otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the information is unreliable, it is that the source is WP:PRIMARY for someone who doesn't get a notability waiver. SportingFlyer talk 06:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and I find the claim that everyone in such a position is notable. Please... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please what? So, the head of the national prison system in, say, Britain or the US wouldn't be notable? Please... -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also think that if we hold all general and flag officers of all national armed forces to be notable, as we do, then it makes no sense for us not to hold the most senior officer of another national uniformed service to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a position of "Director General of Prisons of the Malaysian Prison Department" does not appear to meet WP:NPOL. It has not generated WP:SIGCOV to meet ANYBIO either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about Murad Ahmad and Wan Mohamad Nazarie Wan Mahmood? Both articles were created by User:Wanfahmi57. Panji Keramat (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject is not a politician but a state functionary, in which case, of course, WP:NPOLITICIAN does not apply but we go by WP:GNG. Which subject fails. No two ways about it. And let me just say that the argument made above that suggestions here are NOT supposed to be formulated on the basis of policy but on what we like, presented as "common sense," is a typical misuse of the no-rules "rule" and mind boggling. -The Gnome (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nothing to do with "liking" and everything to do with the fact that common sense would dictate that such senior officials, even in countries that don't plaster everything over the internet, even in eras that existed before the internet (yes, believe it or not, there was such a thing and its inhabitants are valid subjects for articles!), are notable. Ask yourself, would the head of the prison system in a modern Western country be considered notable? The answer is clearly yes, since their careers would be all over the internet. So therefore, by applying the logic of the posters above, we are by definition discriminating against individuals who do not fall into this category, whether that's because they come from developing countries or because they're not active today or both. Frankly, to me, it's "mind boggling" that some editors are incapable of seeing this (although given the growing and frankly worrying obsession on Wikipedia with slavishly obeying "rules", which we don't actually have, and being uncomfortable with anything that doesn't comfortably fit into the "rules", I'm honestly not surprised). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On policy, in general : Sorry but I cannot agree with discounting all rules on the basis of some fuzzy "common sense." AfDs are decided on the basis of policy and guidelines, having always in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not an indiscriminate collection of data, much as that would please some editors.

The relevant guideline, WP:DELPRO, elevates following policy to a major concern (see conflict between the views expressed and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, etc). And there is nothing "slavish" or "blind" about following policy here.

As to your argument about the article per se, again, we have to go by sources as they exist right now, be they offline or online. We live in the internet age but this does not exclude pre-internet sources from being used or from being considered reliable. -The Gnome (talk) 16:18, 12 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Dhaliwal[edit]

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

I do not believe this article's subject is notable, and their references are not significantly about the individual. Under A7, I believe this article could be deleted.

Further points, the article currently reads as mainly an advertisement for them, and appears to be heavily slanted towards their philanthropic points.Elfabet (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains a facebook link as a reference, not a suitable source. Appears to be an Ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.like.pie.4991 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Did a search, movie is about to come out, hence the article for promotion. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No, cant see anything. scope_creep (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scope creep above. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-nothing in English sources and will choose to go by the outcome of GSS's (probable) searching of his native-language-sources.∯WBG^converse 13:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination this promotional text. -The Gnome (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Võro Wikipedia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB - no independent coverage. I am actually suggesting a redirect to List of Wikipedias rather than outright deletion - however, I don't see any reason to merge any more of the content into the list, and as far as I know there isn't a venue for just discussing whether an article should be turned into a redirect without merging any of the content. Also, I would go ahead and be bold and redirect it myself, but it appears to have a bit of a controversial history, including a previous AfD with a result on "No consensus." SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias as already suggested by the nom. In future the situation might be different. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias as suggested. You could have been bold and redirected it, howeever. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias as suggested. No independent notability to merit an article for now. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

María Gabriela de Faría[edit]

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

May not meet notability for actors. The actress has only starred in one notable series. Plus article only has a single reference. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She appears to be the subject of substantial coverage in Spanish-language sources, such as (but by no means limited to) [6] and [7]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos. Google News turns up lots of Spanish-language sources; lots are tabloidy, but enough are good that I think WP:GNG is met. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arms & Hearts, how about WP:NACTOR? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think she meets any of those criteria. But see the top of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included [...] A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. In other words, failure to meet NACTOR is irrelevant if a person meets GNG. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has enough coverage in Spanish language reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frogmore Paper Mill[edit]

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

Sole contributor (User:Varnisher) has declared as having a WP:COI. I don't see anything notable about this. Seems to be Run-of-the-mill (Pun ABSOLUTELY intended....). Seriously though, doesn't seem notable to me. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A real keeper if it is what is says it is. It should be a Listed building, mentioned in the Domesday Book, first mill to use the Fourdrinier paper machine - the most important technical innovation in paper before wood pulp. Yes, I'll check this out - it's just bare bones now, but if even a third of this checks out it's a definite keep. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - thanks for the links below. The mill's website is almost too good, e.g. [8] (click on the 8 subheadings for more full pages). It's too good in that we'd like to have independent sources, but presumably we'll find those. That said the Domesday Book looks like an exaggeration, and my guess that it's a listed building fails (presumably because the mill was updated and rebuilt during its long history). So it looks like a fixer-upper as well as a keeper. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a nice profile here that could be incorporated into the article. Looks like it has enough historical significance to meet WP:NBUILD. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, e.g. Frogmore Mill. Andrew D. (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified in reliable sources as the oldest working paper mill in the world. Need I say more? I expanded the article a bit and dropped in a few sources. Who's for a DYK? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Frogmore Paper Mill Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Seaverns[edit]

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

PROD contested on the basis that he might meet GNG as a college athlete. I disagree: the sources cited on this page are merely routine reports of him being signed, injured, and released, and do not constitute the kind of significant coverage that indicates actual notability.

The subject fails WP:GRIDIRON outright on account of not actually having appeared in any regular season games (see his NFL.com stats). He fails WP:NCOLLATH as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage fails to show WP:GNG is met. He never appeared in an NFL game[9] so he also fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Papaursa (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. Consensus is that it passes WP:PROF (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 11:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maryanne Garry[edit]

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

Notability for academic not achieved. No significant impact on research, no highly prestigious award, no election to a selective society or association, does not hold a chair appointment, or a highest-level position. No substantial impact outside academia, or editor of a major academic journal, or for other fields. I posted on talk on August 20th that this page should be improved otherwise we would need to AfD it. No one responded and no edits have been made to the page since. WP:ACADEMIC Sgerbic (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as original author). Multiple pieces of her work have made popular press headlines around the world over many years including. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/heres-what-image-overload-is-doing-to-your-brain/ https://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/85258775/NZ-and-the-Mandela-Effect-Meet-the-folks-who-remember-New-Zealand-being-in-a-different-place https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10593822 http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/08/02/male_self_citation_in_academic_work_isn_t_really_mansplaining.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/polly-campbell/power-of-suggestion_b_3398584.html https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/our-brains-are-being-bombarded-with-digital-images-like-never-before-and-its-changing-us/ https://theconversation.com/exposed-to-a-deluge-of-digital-photos-were-feeling-the-psychological-effects-of-image-overload-52562 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/false_memories_of_brian_williams_memory_experts_chabris_and_simons_tips.html https://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/proving-innocence https://www.npr.org/2014/05/22/314592247/overexposed-camera-phones-could-be-washing-out-our-memories https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/185728-the-trouble-memory.html https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=12099822 How is this 'No substantial impact outside academia' ? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Stuartyeates, if you have all these references, why didn't you add them to the page? 8==8 Boneso (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just like to second that. Why would you create a stub for someone? Write it in your sandbox completely. Then show it to a couple friends for them to check your grammar and sentence flow. THEN release it. Sgerbic (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thirded, as this has been discussed on multiple other articles in this editor's attempts to add articles on a long list of NZ academic women, often with weak sourcing. If they're notable, show it before you publish it, please. JamesG5 (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that unlike WP:BEFORE (which falls squarely on User:Sgerbic), this onus doesn't fall on me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe so, but if, as is happening here, you're continually creating articles so poorly sourced other editors feel there's an issue and you do it expecting them to pick up the work that's an issue as well. JamesG5 (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely you aren't serious Stuartyeates. If you went to the trouble of finding those references you should have added them. The page should reflect the notability of the subject. In my opinion this article is an insult to the subject. If you are going to go to the trouble of creating a page you should put your best effort into it. A quick scan of the references provided does not show that the subject's work has had 'substantial impact outside academia', only that she is a go to person for a journalist who is writing an article about memory. I hate to see BLPs like this being deleted, and I'm happy to vote with you, Stuartyeates. Perhaps you could provide me with some examples to convince me. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop piling on Stuart, please? This article isn't a stub, and even if it were, they are a perfectly valid and useful way of expanding the encyclopaedia. Notability is something that editors must assess – our purpose here is to write articles, not artificially-padded collections of references to satisfy AfD. – Joe (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF: many highly cited papers and a very high h-index for psychology show significant impact (#C1); Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science (#C3; and as the refs above show, her work has been widely covered in the press (#C7 + WP:GNG). – Joe (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1, #C3 and #C7 as argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I added her fellow status. Meets WP:PROF as argued above. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and #C3 as argued above. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page now reflects the subject's notability. Every page should reflect the subject's notability and I stand by my comments above. I despise REFBOMBING, but there is material in many of those references provided above that should be included on the page. Fair warning of this nomination was given on the talk page and I'm disappointed that the page had to be nominated for anyone to care. I'm happy that it looks like a keep, and I've put this page on my list of articles to improve. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after five uninvolved keep votes, I invite nominator Sgerbic to save everyone time and withdraw the nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Time, you have something better to do? I agree with Boneso, its a shame that it took me nominating it for deletion for people to take it seriously enough to get good content on the page. Garry deserves better than this. Sgerbic (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara De Treaux[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress/performer. Quis separabit? 18:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found plenty of good sources about her. She was in several movies and on stage. She inspired a character by Maupin, she was the shortest actress ever. Passes GNG and a totally interesting person. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well we don't yet have WP:NMLG which says "an article is presumed notable if Megalibrarygirl says it is", but it seems to be a pretty good heuristic from my experience. Anyway, adequately sourced both in the article and via a news search, so easily possible to improve further. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:GNG even has a notable book on her Maybe the Moon.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:58, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bézout method[edit]

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

This paper is entirely based on a single primary source. This source is more than 250 years old, but no secondary source is given. The name of the method is not sourced. This method for solving equations seems to have not be considered in recent literature, probably because the method of Lagrange resolvent is more useful. Thus the method and its name are not notable enough for belonging to WP.

Moreover, a member-to-member-products method for elimination is used without explanation nor reference. The details of this elimination method does not deserve to be described, as being an inelegant way for computing a resultant. However, Bézout's elimination method is still considered in modern mathematics and is the subject of the article Bezoutian, which seems to be ignored by the author of the article. D.Lazard (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello D.Lazard, I translated it from the French article, and I think it could be developed as a part of history of mathimatics. Thanks. --Dr-Taher (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The French article is not better than its translation. It has never been evaluated: I have just evaluated it as a stub of low importance, and its content has never been discussed on the talk page. D.Lazard (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Developing this article as a part of history of mathematics would be original research, and does not belong to Wikipedia. Moreover, this would make sense only if it is compared with other methods of the same period, and with the modern approaches of the subject, whiles not even sketched. By the way, I'll explain my concerns in the talk page of the article. D.Lazard (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrange's paper on the subject has been written 6 years later. It is a dramatic improvement of Bézout's method, and this explains the weakness of the impact of Bézout's method on the theory of equations. Thus, Bézout's method does not deserve more than a mention in a complete article (still to be written) on Lagrange resolvents. D.Lazard (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this seems to be a context-free, primary sourced, unduly expansive treatment. I can't suggest a merge target, but would strongly advocate merging into a wider topic if one can be found. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a journal nor a depository of scientific papers. The contested article represents an unfortunate trend toward precisely such a direction. -The Gnome (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Rampton[edit]

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

The article is mostly unsourced or sourced with primary sources. I see a lot of Google results, but most of them are people/org listings, bookshops selling his books, his own publications, social media, a few book reviews, self-published, etc. MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an old article badly in need of improvement, but the basic problem is that Rampton's biggest books, co-authored with John Stauber were published back in the 90s, and may not have shown up on Nom's WP:BEFORE search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, I didn't improve this old article much, but I did go to a book of his, one of several with the came co-author, Trust Us, We're Experts, and added a few book reviews and some other sources about the book, including a profile of the two co-authors. It should, at least, suffice to give other ediotrs an idea of the kind of sourcing that is available on Rampton and his co-author John Stauber, whose article also needs improvement. Apologies for using a powerful but paywalled news archive for efficiency.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody who loves Repton and Stauber made a page for their 2018 book Banana Republicans. I can't source it; IMHO it should go via SPEEDY or PROD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. James500 (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews of his works. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Yount[edit]

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

Local coverage and routine sports reporting is not enough to meet the GNG. She lost her only fight at the 2014 world youth championships in the round of 32[10]. She lacks success as an adult with a current world ranking of 244 and seems unlikely to make the Olympics with an Olympic ranking of 379[11]. Success as a junior competitor is not enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no doubt she had success as a junior, but that isn't generally considered sufficient to show notability for athletes. Her only world ranking points come from making the quarterfinals of the 2017 Universiade tournament (which means her competition would have been adult, but limited). Her failure to have success as an adult argues against notability and I don't see enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I also don't believe that WP:MANOTE is met. I voted to keep this article at the first discussion, but in retrospect I must have been using my far too cloudy crystal ball. Papaursa (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants the article userfied, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiko Matos[edit]

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

Article focuses on him attending film festivals and one amateur MMA fight. His acting roles have been minor and he has one pro MMA fight for a minor league organization where he beat another first time fighter. He doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NMMA. I don't think there is enough significant independent coverage of him to meet WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Sandals1 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep and stub There's some sources in the controversy section that might push him over the WP:GNG bar, and I don't like deleting articles with too much WP:PROMO on the grounds that they've been peacocked up. But most of the material in there isn't relevant or well sourced and can go. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You think a 2 round exhibition fight and working with a well known (at least in the Philippines) director is enough to show notability? Seems like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINHERITED to me.Sandals1 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the acting work, not the fighting work, that I think bumps him weakly over the bar. I see him as a non-notable fighter who is a marginally notable actor in the Philippines. But then I also tend to err on the side of keep in marginal cases so I can certainly see why somebody else might disagree with my interpretation. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. He obviously doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I see nothing to convince me that he meets WP:NACTOR. Papaursa (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Coverage has not been adequate justify the existence as stand alone article. Excelse (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centrify[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as per G5 speedy deletion criteria. I am opening an AfD just because repeated attempts at deletion have been frustrated by users gaming the system. Here is a summarized timeline:

27 February 2013‎ - created by Ammichel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), later blocked as sockpuppet of the long-term abuser Morning277.
4 September 2013 - Ammichel was blocked, article speedy deleted (G5)
18 September 2013‎ - CitizenNeutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recreates the article ([12]). This user was blocked on 27 January 2014 as another Morning277 sockpuppet.
27 January 2014 - article deleted (G5)
14 April 2014‎ - article recreated by single-purpose account Olivier cv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21 April 2014‎ - article nominated for speedy deletion (G5) by DGG ([13])
22 April 2014 - speedy deletion tag removed by IP 98.173.195.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([14])
9 May 2015 - article PROD'd by Bri ([15])
11 May 2015 - de-PROD'd by 70.197.10.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([16]), twice
11 May 2015 - later de-PROD'd by recently registered, single-edit account BlackDog11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([17])
25 August 2017‎ - further edits by Mrhuuaaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an SPA that edited, exclusively, two articles under heavy COI/UPE editing.
29 September 2017‎ - article edited by ChristianFernandes12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), yet another UPE sockpuppet blocked as such.

These anonymous and SPA start popping up after sockpuppet blocks, and they seem fairly experienced in Wikipedia editing. Either LegalMorning, WikiPR or Centrify itself is clearly gaming the system here to avoid deletion.

In any case, the article has got no better at sources. All of them except one (which is a routine "top ten SaaS security products" listing article) are self-published, press releases or sources with dubious reliability. MarioGom (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (and protect against re-creation) As MarioGom says, doing it here has the advantage of being a more definitive way than speedy. It will clarify further speedy deletions if it is needed by evading the protection. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously since I thought it was PROD worthy earlier, and it's no better now. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here's a breakdown of how all the sources fail WP:ORGCRITE:

Interview. Not independent.
"Top 10" list. Not significant or reliable
Centrify gets 10m in 3rd round. It's a listed example of trivial coverage: "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital,"
Blog post/opinion piece. Sadly enough, actually the best source in the entire list. Even if this is acceptable though, multiple sources that pass the criteria are needed.
More trivial coverage of capital raised

Otherwise, the article has no attempt to establish notability and was created with the worst of intentions, so it's an easy delete. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that's quite a history of abuse, and some pretty poor sources. After so much time, one would have expected many better sources to be available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Terrible history. scope_creep (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear desperate attempts at promotion with dubious sources. Also support salting of the title. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very salty. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:08, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Saluja[edit]

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

Fails on WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Not enough references and significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. Hitro talk 07:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Nothing done so far is notable. lacks WP:SIGCOV as well. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 16:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ENT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018#District 1. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Andrews[edit]

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

Political candidate who has not been elected and news coverage only details her candidacy. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 00:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there appears to be some reliable source coverage on the topic. Delete per below replies. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources only cover her candidacy though. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what the article seems to be about, so I don't personally see an issue. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 01:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates fail WP:NPOL and don't typically pass the WP:10YT test, and neither does Ms. Andrews at this time. SportingFlyer talk 01:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what NPOL says, like, at all. "...[unelected candidates] can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this coverage is about the election, not the candidate. This whole article is a WP:COATRACK. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, consensus demonstrates the need to balance unelected candidate articles with promotional, BLP1E and recentism concerns. Just receiving campaign coverage isn't enough to get a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer talk 02:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with multiple independent sources.--TM 01:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article about a non-elected candidate. No significant coverage outside her campaign. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 01:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Namiba:, would you mind providing RS not covering her candidacy? Meatsgains^(talk) 01:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that articles be filled with sources outside of a political campaign. If you can show me policy to that end, I will gladly reconsider my opinion.--TM 01:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason she has any coverage in the first place is because she is a political candidate. Are you saying her candidacy is what makes her notable? Meatsgains^(talk) 02:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that "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". This is Wikipedia's policy. Nowhere does it indicate when or how or why a person received the significant, independent coverage. If we agree that such coverage exists, all other arguments against are simply a version of "I don't like unelected politicians having articles".--TM 01:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't entirely correct. The WP:GNG is simply a presumption - an article may nevertheless fail the WP:GNG if it falls under "what Wikipedia is not." Longstanding consensus is to redirect or delete candidate articles based off of several principles, including promotion, routine political sourcing, neutral point of view issues, and recentism/the "ten year" rule, which doesn't mean a candidate can't have an article - it just means candidates must typically go above and beyond just being a candidate in a recent election to have an article. Local candidates are rarely notable if they don't win, and in Wikipedia, once you're notable, you're always notable. If she's elected, she'll easily pass WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 01:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy to which you refer? If it is not policy, as I said, it is simply your opinion. I think we should operate under the policies of the project and not the whims of a few editors.--TM 11:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at any recent AfD for any candidate who is up for election this cycle. SportingFlyer talk 19:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you are referring to is not Wikipedia policy and can be overturned or changed upon further review.--TM 00:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL, promotion as a candidate and recentism/WP:10YR issues. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL states that unelected politicians can be notable if they pass WP:GNG. Re: recentism, the page you link to is a suggestion, not policy. It says so right at the top of the page.--TM 20:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and clean up. Based on non-interview sources in article she passes GNG. NPOL notes that even if they are an unelected candidate, regular (GNG) criteria still applies, which she passes from the sources in the article, imo. It is promotional in tone, however. That needs to be addressed. Redirect to the election she is serving in. While I still believe the article could stand on its own from GNG, redirecting is a better option and if she wins then we can easily make a proper article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. Tried to reduce the promotional tone (unintended). She is notable in her role in the district over the past decade serving under the current Congressional representative focused on that. It is notable that she is running as well but moved that to the appropriate section. Westonnh ^(_Talk) 14:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the election she is running in. Unelected official, who, although has coverage about her, passes no guidelines. The coverage is just her policies and brief mentions that she's running and nothing otherwise. The revision history will be kept if she wins so then the article can be restored. Her name may be a popular search term so it's best to do this. Redditaddict6 9 03:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 03:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this is a clear case of a non notable political candidate with a campaign advertisement masquerading as a biographical article. Most if the article is non biographical political positions. Much WP:TOOSOON for an article on this candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unelected candidate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for subject failing WP:NPOL. Quite active in politics, per sources, but does not meet the Wikipedia threshold. A Redirect to the election in which she is involved would not be out of place. -The Gnome (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are conflicting views about what to do here - can anyone else chip in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018. Right now the article is WP:PROMO, given that much of its content itemizes political positions that are probably not necessary content for a former campaign manager's bio but obviously important for promoting a political candidate. So, redirect to the election, with no prejudice against recreation if subject wins. Bakazaka (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018#District 1. The article is a WP:COATRACK promoting her candidacy as opposed to serving as a true biographical article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Marquardtika (talk) 17:06, 11 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vision (Italian think tank)[edit]

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

Granted that it has only been tagged shortly now, but for 10 years this article has nothing but primary sources on it. It is completely self-serving and does not seem to have interaction from outside (did any external organization ever use anything produced by this think tank?). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Leflyman's arguments that the sources, even the new ones suggested by Noian, do not discuss the same specific genre of music are persuasive, and there are no other arguments to keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epic music[edit]

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

Only one source even mentions more than one "epic music" artist. All other sources talk about at most one artist in the genre. This can't satisfy WP:LISTN and it is best to use these sources on the individual artists' articles. wumbolo ^^^ 10:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Article full of Original Research, primarily derived from one company, Immediate Music who may be pushing the term as a branding/marketing concept. "Epic music" is effectively the same as "Incidental music" and/or "film score", and mentions should be converted to such. --Leflyman^Talk 16:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Epic Music" is an invention of Immediate Music. All the sources are about how Immediate Music call music trailer music "Epic Music". This article is a thinly veiled attempt at promotion and mostly OR. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A mess of original research. Looking at sourcing:

1. No mention of epic music.

2. Interview where someone states that some fans have started calling trailer music epic music.

3. Interview with the head of a company that is trying to sell the concept of a separate genre.

4. WNYC uses "epic music" in quotes then states so-called "epic music" and later refers to trailer music without quotes. This does not really support claims of a separate genre.

5. Press release.

6. Gearpatrol. One question touches on suggestions of a genre but does not go into real depth.

7. "even though it's hard to say what the music really is - they don't have an "epic" genre category". is as close as this one gets.

8. Facebook post

9. Press release

10. Press release

11. "I’m an epic music guy, I mean stuff that you would hear in a movie, orchestra stuff, big movie soundtracks." Different to what the Wikipedia page is peddling.

12. Not working for me.

13. States that there is an Epic music scene, very little coverage

14. This one actually does use the term a lot and tries a bit to describe it. Talking about a fan community.

15. Says someone is one of the preeminent producers of Epic Music but says nothing else.

Sourcing does not support the article. Impression I get that it's fans calling Trailer music Epic music but we already have a page on trailer music. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Film Score.Edited:Strong Keep/Rewrite - See UCLA Approved PHD Paper, pdf page 10; 60-68, (pdf pages).

(I would advocate fixing the article's poor quality and keeping but Deletionist Wikipedia would never keep. Epic music is not limited to Film Scores or Trailer Music, and Film Scores/Trailer Music is not limited to Epic Music). Certainly not an invention of a single company. Commonly Used Music Terms in the Library of Congress Genre/Form Yale University - Epic Songs Epic Music Google - Returns Epic Music as a music Genre. Jamendo. What Makes Epic Music Article which does mention multiple artists; in the genre. Also see Discussion on what Epic Music is includes a description of what makes Epic Music "Harmony changes. From a cultural standpoint, there's a grab-bag of particular harmony changes most of us equate with epic: 1. An instrument (or instrument family, etc.) being highlighted in its upper register. 2. Oftentimes the climax at the moment where most people go "whoa...this is epic..." has an adjusted meter of some kind. Sometimes the music will go into a doubletime feel; in my opinion, this matches the human reaction of relaxation at a moment of climax. 3. There's often a common tone held over in at least one voice, but often it's highlighted and emphasized by the composer." and "Genre classification is always a tricky subject with a lot a subjectivity and cultural context attached. ...there seems to be grounds to use "epic" to categorize music that matches a certain set of expectations from music fans, not just the professional community, even if such music can come from different genres like classical, film, or production business music." Also in one of the article's citations, you will find the authors themselves do not consider their music trailer music or film music"[TSFW Composer] does not consider himself a trailer music composer, and strongly dislikes being lumped into a specific genre. Bergesen didn’t write “Final Frontier” for Two Steps From Hell to be used in a film trailer, but simply as one track on his own album, Sun, which he insists was not created to be shopped for trailers. “My focus has always been on creating good music,” Bergersen wrote in an email. “Whether the music works in a movie, a trailer, a video game, in someone’s home video, or on someone’s headphones in the gym, it really doesn’t matter to me.” Bergersen is part of a segment of musicians that interact and intersect with films, but also refuse to be defined by the silver screen" ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The use of "epic" in the links above is misleading:

The Yale library listing of "epic songs" actually refers to the usage of the descriptive for ethnographic music by the Library of Congress , the alternate name for which is "heroic songs" -- as in songs related to oral epics (e.g. Homeric epics.)
The "What Makes Epic Music" article has nothing to do with the claims of being a genre. The article uses the word "epic" as a subjective adjective, as defined in the first paragraph, "sometimes you truly bond with a special album, one where you are moved by the triumph of ambition and vision of the musician or band who made it." It lists examples like John Coltrane's jazz classic A Love Supreme. The article is about "era-defining music" and "concept albums" -- which is not at all what this article is about.
Likewise, the link to free music site Jamendo doesn't support the claims of the article: the term "epic" is not listed as a genre, but under the subjective descriptor of "Energetic Mood." In addition to listing genres, the Jamendo catalog sorts music according to "Moods": Happy; Energetic; Calm; Sad. It then further describes them in "Themes", such as, under "Happy": "Beach, Celebration, Cheerful, Kids, Electric, Holiday, Hopeful, Inspiring, Motivational, Uplifting, Sunny." --Leflyman^Talk 05:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the article to be poorly written, Epic Music should be rewritten with the definition that it is a "cross-genre categorization of music" which some consider a genre of it's own. In Vietnam Musician Finds Grandeur in Epic Genre they specifically reference literary epics and is inspired by heroism, which ties to heroic songs. On the library of congress on, I agree that Epic Songs is under the broader category of Narrative Song for categorizing music. Your link is the wrong entry though, that's not for music, this is the correct one on the LoC. The wiki article should also touch on alternative definitions of an epic (such as heroic song). That doesn't mean the topic isn't notable, but rather the article is poorly written. In addition the what makes epic music article actually talks aboutηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article which references multiple artists in the genre Epic Music Through the Ears of an Architect ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Doctorate Paper on Epic Music approved by UCLA Music Department [18] which goes into what makes epic music in detail ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book on epic music genre (probably historical per the description of it in the paper) [19]. SAE Institute on Alumnus Winning Awards in Epic Music Genre I'm going to go to bed, but if anyone is interested in fixing the article, you can see my scratchpad at User:Noian/Epic_Music. I likely won't be able to finish it since I'm too busy with work/masters program. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor above seems to be including anything that has the words "epic" and "music" close together, as though they always refer to the claimed genre of "epic music." Perhaps he is not reading the actual content. The 2014 Dissertation linked is specifically about World of Warcraft's use of background music -- it's titled The Music of World of Warcraft, Lore of Epic Music. The abstract starts with, "Epic role playing games such as the World of Warcraft are accompanied by epic music which intensifies the players' in-game experience and sensations." This is, again, a descriptive use of "epic" as a subjective adjective, not a genre of music.

Likewise, the Amazon link to the Farsi language book, Epic and Music suffers the same problem: it's described as consisting of "five Chapters each of which covering a different aspect of music and epic in Persian context. The impact of musical form and Persian poetry is the first chapter of this book. This chapter provides the basics of Epical poem and music and its fundamental concepts written by Fatemeh Mirtaheri" This is about Persian epics and music not music for movie trailers. The editor should stop providing links that attempt to merge all uses of "epic" as though they are the same -- these do not support the article, and are effectively Original Research through Synthesis. --Leflyman^Talk

If you bothered to look at the sources you would see they are clearly talking about epic music, as a genre. You are willfully misinterpreting the sources by picking quotes out of context. Go look at the paper's table of contents and the section on epic music history. It clearly links how modern epic music is tied to historical epics, I'm not engaging in original research or synthesis. In fact, based on the articles I had read prior to the paper, I was of the opposite understanding (that they were 2 separate things). If you read the entire amazon summary it starts off with historical epics and music but it ends up talking about modern epic music (explicit that wording). Many other sources explicitly state epic music genre and they state it is not just trailer music. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to work on my article revision instead of wasting time arguing with folks who don't want to bother improving things. Don't go throw wikipedia policies at me as if I'm a newbie, I've been around on Wikipedia forever, not going to play the game of wikilawyering and constantly changing goal posts when I've found plenty of sources that counter the purported reason for deleting this article topic (however poorly written it is) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G5(non-admin closure). John from Idegon (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys[edit]

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

Fails ORG. Editor who promoted it claimed it was notable because it published a prestigious journal.^{[citation needed]} Even if the journal (of which notability has not been determined) were notable, or prestigious, or important, which I'm neither endorsing or contesting, that does not make the organization that produces it notable per INHERIT. Other sources on the article are either directly affiliated, or purely puff. Like an improperly attributed quote from a lawyer's blog attesting to the prestigious nature of the fellowship she was just awarded. BEFORE turned up nothing better. John from Idegon (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep No, I never stated it was notable because it published a prestigious journal. Your twisting the facts, and misrepresenting me which is WP:BADFAITH editing. This Afd is vexatious on your part. It is a learned society, with elected fellows, that has published its own journal for more than 60 years. Your think because it is matrimonial lawyers that it has worth and the blog references has been left over from the draft it is not worth an article. It has been in existence for 60 years, and I'm sure it has a lot of storied experience, full of potential sources. Any association, group, academy, learned society, institute, college, university or society are intrinsically notable by definition, as they have been brought together for defined purpose, and that purpose makes them notable. The article is covered by WP:NEXIST. This Afd is vexatious. scope_creep (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd strongly suggest you cool the personal attacks, as you are the one that promoted an article through AfC that did not have one single reliable independent source and then stated publicly that you have not reviewed at AfC recently and did know the standard had changed (it hasn't) to not promote articles that cannot pass AfD on inspection. And NO organization is covered by NEXIST. John from Idegon (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the sources in the article, and my own searching, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:AUD, and WP:ORGIND. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. I've made a mistake on NEXIST, but it is still notable. I added two references, which should have been enough to stop it being deleted. scope_creep (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the first reference insufficient to save it, from the University of Chicago Press, scope_creep (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scope creep, I'd say no. A book published by an elite university press such as UC Press would almost certainly be above reproach from a reliablity standpoint, but the depth of coverage is missing. You've got one paragraph that contains no information that cannot be found on the organization's website. No analysis, no indication of even much research. Even the other likely reliable, secondary source, the Connecticut Law newspaper, is only a job announcement; again lacking depth. Still fails ORGDEPTH. John from Idegon (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book source added by Scope creep [20] and this one [21] have enough coverage to get it past GNG and ORGDEPTH. SpinningSpark 17:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry about that refactor. scope_creep (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I added a couple additional links to the Talk page as support. I also disclosed a potential COI relationship, only because I am familiar with the organization. I am not a member, and no member is family or a friend. I am not receiving any compensation. Please do not attack me as a new contributor, since I am still learning the rules and do not know if I am making a mistake right now by commenting. TaxPapa (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You are certainly allowed to comment here; in fact, it would be unusual if you didn't. However, your !vote will likely be discounted by the editor who closes this. You've made what we call an WP:ILIKEIT !vote. I think you said somewhere you're a lawyer. These discussions work just like court. Instead of making arguments to law based on precident and evidence (we specifically discount precident here. See WP:OSE.), you make arguments to Wikipedia policies and guidelines based in reliable sources. This discussion will remain open at least 6 more days. I'd suggest you spend some of that time learning the lawbook so to speak. Remember you can also improve the article if possible by adding content based in reliable sources. But notability will not be improved unless you add reliable secondary sources, totally independent of the subject of the article, that speak of the subject in detail. John from Idegon (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is over 800 pages of newspapers articles between 1970 and 1980 alone at newspapers.com, related to the academy. scope_creep (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following was offered as a reference: Mondaq and AAML have no causal relationshop. Mondaq is a very large advice site that offers legal, financial and regulatory information from over 70 countries. Its not the best, but it is a start. This has some history: [22]. Not the best either, but also a start. 13:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment It will need to be G5'd. scope_creep (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "delete" votes have it by a wide margin, but most of them were lodged prior to the introduction of numerous new sources. The article has significantly more citations now than it did when it was first listed at AfD, so I don't think "per nom" carries much weight anymore. I'd encourage James500 and other interested editors to continue improving the article, with the aim of establishing notability more firmly, and I also leave the door open to a new nomination if significant coverage has not been found and cited after some time. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Falkiner Goold[edit]

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

Bishops of major churches organized on a geographic basis, such as the Church of England (or the Anglican Church of Ireland) are presumed to be notable here. I do not think we have ever extended this to archdeacons, who at least in the modern era are always subsidiary officials over part of a diocese, and there is no other evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another archdeacon who shows up simply as a catalogue entry. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete catalogue entries do not establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many similar churches, we can't create article for each. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. He has amongst other things an article in Boase's Modern English Biography [23] which is a gold standard source for those who died in the late nineteenth century, probably the leading source (I am tempted to invoke criteria 3 of ANYBIO). He would not be in there if he wasn't notable. Add to that an obituary in Freeman's Journal (2 February 1877) and the Illustrated London News [24] ("Archdeacon Goold", towards bottom of last column) and the rest of the coverage available in GBooks etc, and I think he is well within acceptable limits for a person of this era. It goes without saying that just looking only for "Frederick Falkiner Goold" is useless, and one has to search for things like "Archdeacon Goold", "F F Goold", "F Goold", "Goold Frederick" or just "Goold" +archdeacon, or +raphoe, or +1852, +1877, (or any other relevant date or place) or +obituary etc or various combinations etc. Whatever the sources might be, I do not think they could be fairly described as "catalogue entries". James500 (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: James500's sources merit discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Some archdeacons will be notable; many not. In this case, I do not see that he is notable. I note he is not in the Dictionary of Irish Biography or Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The Illustrated London News obit does not do more than say he held office and who his family were. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other sources besides the ones I cited. If, for the sake of argument he is not notable, then he ought to be merged to Archdeacon of Raphoe per ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The level of detail in the obituary is actually normal for a nineteenth century obituary of a notable person. Obituaries at that time, even in The Times, did not necessarily have the same level and type of detail as obituaries today. In any event, it does give more information: it says he was one of the principal landowners in county of Limerick (which is important) and gives details of his birth, death, education etc (relevant). James500 (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Other sources include, in particular, history books such as (Elections, Politics and Society in Ireland) [25] [26], other biographical dictionaries such as Walford [27], Parliamentary Papers [28], Encyclopaedia Britannica [29] (which says he owned 10,966 acres of land and was the the fourth largest landowner), The Builder and The British Architect (details of some of his building projects) [30] [31] [32] [33], poetry lamenting his death [34], and other obituaries such as [35] [36]. This is only a small sample of the vast quantity of coverage Goold received. James500 (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps redirect to the appropriate Archdeacon article if possible — in this case, Archdeacon of Raphoe. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hae-sun[edit]

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

Subject's Notability, Looks like a criminal resume. NANExcella (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NANExcella, What did you find in Korean language sources? Sam Sailor 18:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear friend Sam Sailor, i found Kim Hae-sun a criminal and the article looks like a criminal's resume. NANExcella (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't imagine that an article on a triple serial killer from the UK or US would be deleted. Clearly notable. Clear WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot verify this. I ran a Proquest news archive search on "Kim Hae-sun" With a crime committed in 2000, running the name of a criminal always brings up sources IF the crime was committed in a country that uses the Latin alphabet, and it very often works for crimes committed in countries using other alphabets. Especially highly developed countries like South Korea. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - per WP:GNG and good faith. I agree with E.M.Gregory, but sometimes I guess these kind of cases can either become very discussed in media and other times not. But for that matter the less discussed case is not necessarily less notable. I think this is an article that should be kept for now based on article quality. And revisited in 6 months tims.BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Since the pre-copyvio version was restored, nobody has commented on a definitive option for the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blou (band)[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized article about a band whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. As always, it's not the claim to passing NMUSIC that gets a band over NMUSIC, but the quality of the referencing that can be shown to properly support that the claim to passing NMUSIC is actually true -- but there are no sources being shown here at all, and the reason why notability claims have to be properly sourced to clinch an article is precisely that it's so easy to drown the notability claim in an avalanche of promotionalism exactly like this. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete blatant COPYVIO. Tagged CSD. Contents 98% lifted from https://www.blou.ca/en-biographie.php. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was 'advertorial' because of the copyvio introduced in 2012. I have reverted to the pre-copyvio version and removed the speedy deletion tag - you really need to check article history before speedy deletion tagging for copyvio. There are sources out there, e.g. [37], [38], [39]. --Michig (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NBAND. -The Gnome (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Michig's sources should be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Because of the respect I happen to have for Michig's work, I checked again the sourcing, including searches for Patrice Boulianne, the lead musician and main person actually behind the band.

The subject of the contested article fails criteria #2 to #7 of WP:NBAND (single in the charts; gold recording; major award for record; work used in soundtracks or TV; heavy rotation in media; subject of substantial broladcast in mahor media). We are left with a search for sources.

WP:NBAND states the following : The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the ensemble notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Someone simply talking about themselves does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be notable. This excludes all interviews from being the main evidence for notability: Interviews can be used as sources for information, of course, but not as the sole or main evidence of notability.

Onwards to the sources then: Two of the sources provided by Michig are interviews with the frontman conducted by music websites, one here and another here. (There's another one here. More interviews are out there. All very interesting, for what it's worth, at least to my eyes.) The third source offered by Michig is a news item about the band winning the "Fan's Choice Entertainer of the Year" prize at the 2012 ECMA annual ceremony at the Casino New Brunswick, which I'm afraid does not establish the level of notability required by WP:NBAND.

I understand that the kind of music the band plays is not causing the kind of news waves that would provide the article with verifiable notability but, then again, Wikipedia's policy about musicians' notability is shaped in a manner that excludes a great deal of musically worthy subjects. For this fan of zydeco and assorted stuff, it's an unfortunate state of affairs. Dura lex. -The Gnome (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Regular Show characters[edit]

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

Vast list article, based on a single vague and in-universe source which does nothing to detail the individual characters.

If any of this stuff (such as major characters) stands up, then merge it to the Regular Show article. Otherwise it should go. A vast list like this belongs on a Wikia maybe, but not Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE this should not have been brought to AFD at all. This is a notable series that obviously requires description of its characters, and there is no section at all in the parent article. The questions of whether a WP:SPLIT is merited, what is an appropriate level/detail of coverage, and what can be sourced to the series itself and what would require secondary sourcing, are all for ordinary editing and discussion to resolve. Instead we're wasting our time on a process that has no application here, because at most this would be redirected to the parent article (again, see policy at WP:ATD), brought by a nominator who has not even bothered to raise the question on either relevant talk page. postdlf (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it just needs cleanup. I echo what the above user said about the notability of the series, the question of the necessity of the split, and the trouting for using AFD for cleanup. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about cleanup, this is about removal. There's no question of the series being notable (this isn't the article about the series, no-one is looking to delete the series article). But a huge unsourced list article shouldn't be here. Nor is there any indication that listing all these very minor characters approaches notability - and any major characters could easily be covered in the best place for them, the overall article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a lot of issues but I think that its notability is reasonable as a WP:SPLIT of the parent article. Teemu08 (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit with total sympathy for the nominator's argument. The article is easily ten times the length it needs to be, and has probably a tenth of the sources it would ideally have. But a list of characters is needed, either in the parent article or in a separate list, and per WP:SIZESPLIT it's reasonable to split it off for size reasons (the parent article is at 56k, and with even a massively reduced version of the list merged it would certainly top 60k, which is the point at which the information page suggests a split is likely to be needed). So although some serious pruning is needed, it isn't really the case that even an appropriately cut-down version of the list "could easily be covered in [...] the overall article". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above comments. Wouldn't mind a merge to the actual Regular Show page if this ends up not being kept/ Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:06, 12 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. postdlf (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by murder rate[edit]

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

Article relies entirely on a single, unreliable source Odiseo79 (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Homicide in world cities. Might be an acceptable topic however WP:RS is an issue in this case. Ajf773 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has two sources. Which one is the unreliable one and why? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You're right, it has two sources. But one of them (worldatlas.com) does not cite its metodology nor sources and basically it's replicating the data from the other source (seguridadjusticiaypaz.org.mx). So that leaves us with only one, unofficial source. I think we need at least one official source. --Odiseo79 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems pretty reliable to me. It's a citizens' organization in a country where this is a pressing social issue. Here is the study quoted by Forbes. (As far as I know, this is a legit "staff" writer for Forbes, not a "contributor"; see WP:RSP). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Finnusertop. The organization seems legit; they very clearly lay out the methodology; and it's all online so anyone can verify it. What does it mean to be not "official" enough? -- irn (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organization that authored the study seems reliable. It has published numerous statistical analyses, some of which have been covered in the Mexican press. apt-ark (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete Unless there is some ongoing and reliable source for this, it needs to be deleted. Murder rates change, a lot, from year to year. I would also have to question whether simply reformating the data from a single source avoids a copyright violation. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the article is very much incomplete, the topic is legitimate and the few meager sources are reliable too. Instead, add tags as appropriate to the article and help improve it! Shushugah (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simple and encyclopedic subject that has been covered by tons. Stand alone article is warranted. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - stand alone article is indeed warranted here.BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN. A search for "murder capital of the world" or even "murder capital" produces a lot of sources. There are also studies for the murder rates in major cities, so even without the sources in the article, it would be possible to compile a list. James500 (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosati's[edit]

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

There are two Rosati's with their different websites in the same geographic area, completely indistinguishable. This article is a mix of both. This article keeps getting reverted back and vandalized by someone who represents one of the companies. This article is not significant and is quite pointless. If its really necessary, a new article can be made. JibuWoooooooooooah (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 21:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 21:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 21:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in bad shape but no valid reason given for its deletion. AFD is not intended as a place to resolve disputes. Teemu08 (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is third party coverage of Rosati's on Google News. I think there's confusion because there's a myrosatis.com and a rosatis.com, both of which appear to belong to the same restaurant. Is that the confusion you're referring to? In any case, the restuarant is deserving of an article, though the current article is blatant advertising from COI, possibly paid, editors. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[40] Looks like there are in fact a large number of variations of Rosati's that all trace back to the same guy, but they're all different companies. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I rewrote the article to be specifically about ROSATI’S FRANCHISE & DEVELOPMENT LLC. I made this decision because there's an existing redirect with that name that points to this article, and it was the company I was able to find third party coverage of. However, if the other companies using this name are also notable, then the article should be renamed and another article for that Rosati's established. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local business, local coverage (The State Journal-Register - state wide, Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal. - city wide), not suitable for national (not too mention international) encyclopedia; fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. PS. Ping User:Teemu08 - I agree with what you said, but I hope my argument for deletion is more valid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with this assessment. [41] shows that this business is actually quite widespread. And there's nothing wrong with local newspaper coverage. They're significant, reliable, and independent, as far as I can tell. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a number of branches nationwide (or even international-wide) is not sufficient for notability (through of course helps with other things that are).As for local newspaper coverage, it is particularly inadvisable for organizations, see WP:AUD. IMHO this should've been expanded long ago to WP:N in general, but I guess it didn't, however there is consensus to avoid such sources when it comes to businesses. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my Wikipedia Library credentials just lapsed and I have to wait for renewal, but it looks like there are some good WP:NCORP-friendly articles in Chicago Tribune for Nov 5, 1995, Entrepreneur Vol 19 p 240, and Restaurant Business vol. 104 p 32. Teemu08 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Teemu08: [42] The article in Chicago Tribune seems solid, but it's about the whole group of Rosati's in general. According to the article, family members get to use the "Rosati's" name for free, which explains why there's 50 different companies that all operate under Rosati's. I think it might be worth thinking about rewriting the article as a collection of companies rather than as one. In any case, the article is still salvageable so I don't think it's a good idea to delete. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company announcements and/or interviews/quotations from affiliated sources. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As someone who lives in an area where multiple Rosati's companies operate (Phoenix), it is confusing. If the article can be made to talk about the different branches, it might help. But that's difficult and invites quite a bit of puff. Raymie (t • c) 19:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and commentary, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 15:47, 12 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) 13:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pathachakra F.C.[edit]

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

Club that fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG Matthew_hk t c 08:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and seem deleted before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathachakra F.C. Matthew_hk t c 08:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 08:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This club plays in the third tier of Indian football and I can't believe it isn't a notable organisation. If you search for the club's name in Bengali (পাঠচক্র), it gets over 2,000 Google News hits – I can't tell how many of these are GNG-meeting coverage, but I'd be surprised if there was nothing – we really need a Bengali speaker to advise. Nominating this for deletion without a cursory search in the relevant language is leaning towards WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS. @GiantSnowman: Don't know if you want to reconsider. Cheers, Number 5 7 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far the current version is no difference with the first AfD discussion (F dot C nodot). Google hit mean nothing, it should be required to be shown in the article for any language source as WP:verify and they should be non-routine. Just saying stuff not shown on the article may make the club passing WP:GNG, fails verifiability. Matthew_hk t c 19:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem as if you've followed WP:BEFORE though – did you check the Bengali sources? If not, how can you claim it fails WP:GNG? This news website has a few stories about the club for a start. Number 5 7 19:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What i only saw similar article title Pathachakra FC was userfiy to Draft:Pathachakra FC and then abandoned, while the current version Pathachakra F.C. may qualify CSD G4 (as the recreation of Pathachakra F.C). It make no point in an encyclopedia that merely a collection of squad list, as well as lack of user to build a true article with brief club history (even lack of machine translation by google). The current version may survived as a draft by userify again, but club history is not dynamic, squad list is. If people want squad list, google themselves. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Matthew_hk t c 19:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't qualify for WP:G4 as this is its first AfD. SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an annual ritual. Non-notable CFL club pages get created every time CFL rolls around. These pages are almost always created with no reliable sources. CFL is a third-tier league in India, so the club pages may be eligible for notability, but it has to have notability established. Coderzombie (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Number 57.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't a third-tier club, by definition, fail WP:FOOTY? Ifnord (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two opinions for delete, two for keep. I see that more research may need to be done here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 21:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 21:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Number 57, I think this club is (just) notable enough. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep don't have time to flesh out the argument at the moment, but a simple before search shows the topic has been covered in several different news sources all covering the Calcutta league. Needs improvement, not deletion, as they say. SportingFlyer talk 06:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer talk 00:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I'm a native Bengali speaker and all the local coverage is centered around CFL and of player sign-ups.Pinging @Number 57:.Clear-cut NFOOTY failure.∯WBG^converse 17:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and WBG's analysis of the sources, except the link is WP:FOOTYN and not WP:NFOOTY which is just for bios and not the clubs. Shame the project didn't find a less confusing name. I don't understand why @SportingFlyer: you say it doesn't meet G4 this seems to be exactly the same club as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathachakra F.C except for the final full stop. Salt as per User:GiantSnowman.--Dom from Paris (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Dobek[edit]

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

Article created by User:OberRanks, known for falsifying sources (see User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks#Hans Dobek for analysis). In addition to the general problem of source credibility, we have a special verification and notability problem here: we don't even know what this person's name was. This is an otherwise non-notable military officer (clearly failing WP:MILBIO as such), whose only moment of potential notability is that he once dodged active participation in a massacre of civilians (a "one-event" notability at best). But the name of the guy who did that is given in various reliable sources in multiple different versions: some sources say it was one Hans (or Johann) Dobek, while others say it was somebody called Hellmuth (or Helmuth) Dobrick (or Dobbrick). So, are "Dobek" and "Dobrick" the same person? The article's lead sentence currently implies that we are dealing with a single man who genuinely went under two different names, which is highly unlikely. Is one of the two names the correct one and the other simply a mis-spelling? Or were there actually two men, one Dobek and one Dobrick? In the latter case, were both of them connected to that SS unit in Rome? If yes, which of these men is this article about? Do we know that the guy whose (non-)role in the Ardeatine massacres is mentioned in sources is the same one about whom we have (non-reliably sourced) biographical data?

Even if we could find answers to these questions: The fact that none of the reliable sources in the literature that mention him even goes so far as to notice the objective contradiction in the sources, let alone comment on it or explain it, just demonstrates that none of them has taken Dobek/Dobrick as a subject of biographical interest in its own right; that's the clearest proof of non-notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the dearth of sources, and the fact that the article creator is site banned for chronic source fabrication and source misrepresentation, we can't even assume anything included in the article that's not well sourced is true. One source is a discussion forum, one is simply an obituary, and one is a 404, so we can't trust a word of it. Even without the problems with the author and even if we could trust the content, I'm still not seeing notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete the sources I could find were in Italian and German, which appear to briefly mention Dobek (with this spelling) and his non-involvement in the massacres. In Italian there is this and in German the Prauser article in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte is available via JSTOR and may have more detail on Dobek. At this stage I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet the GNG, but I will look at the JSTOR article shortly to see if there is enough there. Footnotes 1 and 2 are definitely not RS. Definitely does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Prauser article is now online here: [43]. It does mention "Dobek" briefly (on the page indicated, p.292f.), also noting that some of the primary sources call him Dobrick instead (the author marks that with a "[sic]"). There's a brief discussion of whether he actually refused an order to participate in the massacre or whether he simply maneuvred to have it done by others, and a remark that he died before the end of the war and could therefore never be asked about it. It doesn't match the contents that are being cited to it in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with your summation. I'd say he doesn't meet the GNG threshold and this article should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George S. Flinn Jr.[edit]

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

Political candidate (only) who has never held political office and who did not even win his party's recent primary. Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. A loose noose (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. It doesn't seem anyone wants to touch this with a 10' pole. I am trying to figure out why. I see that the article went through AfC and was accepted (eventually) by Legacypac back in March under the premise that the subject also owns a lot of radio stations. However, the editor who created the article, Orual1963, has a VERY brief and recent edit history (53 edits) and has only made significant contributions to this article and one other article, and stopped editing once this article was published; there is no paid editing declaration on that editor's user page, but neither has there been any response to being notified that I nominated the article for deletion, which makes me think this was a kind of throwaway account and that the editor who wrote the article was probably paid but didn't declare it. I am doubly suspicious because the subject was recently running for election. The AfC draft was declined several times because other editors didn't think the subject was notable. If the article seems pretty likely to be the result of an undeclared paid edit by an in-and-out editor, isn't that by itself enough reason to delete it? If not, isn't the fact that the subject is an unelected political candidate enough to delete it? If not, aren't those two things together enough to delete it? Or does the fact that it went through AfC protect it from deletion somehow? A loose noose (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC doesn't protect an article from deletion at all. I haven't "touched this" yet because he fails WP:NPOL but I didn't look to see if he passed WP:GNG for his non-political work. If there's a COI issue, that's worth raising. SportingFlyer talk 00:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I guess maybe I am raising it (?). But if the original author is no longer active and there is no declared COI, how can I prove this? The innuendo seems believable, but without a COI declaration, there isn't anything to go by (that I know of). What kind of evidence would count? Also, during the AfC discussion, Legacypac determined that "Multiple runs for national office, even if he loses, can build to notability. The 30 broadcast stations would generate RS coverage in multiple markets during purchase, relicensing etc." A search on the subject's name produces a huge volume of articles related to his candidacy, but I didn't come across any discussion of him on other grounds. We can't ever find that he is not notable (per se), we can only find that he either is notable or we can fail to find that he is notable (yet), which is very different. How do we proceed from there? A loose noose (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon review of the sources in the article and (three quick WP:BEFORE searches) he fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. I expected there to be more about his health and radio work, but there are only a few hits on Google Scholar, and the campaign coverage is mostly routine with the exception of one quasi-bio. SportingFlyer talk 06:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither county councillors nor unsuccessful candidates in party primaries get an automatic inclusion freebie under NPOL just for existing, his notability as a radio station owner is not properly demonstrated by the purely routine directory sources being shown for that, and there's no demonstration of his notability as a radiologist being shown at all. This is far, far too dependent on primary sources, with not nearly enough real reliable source coverage in media to deem his work in any of these fields special. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral Royalties for Citizens and Military[edit]

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

I fail to see anything resembling significant (or trivial) coverage of the subject, discussed here-in by any media-source or book or academic journals.

Frankly, going by it's proposed ramifications, if it had managed to evolve to anything beyond the brain-storming-stage, it ought to be national-fodder for a span of time and I don't remotely recollect reading anything about this in print-media.

Also, the write-up style significantly indicates that we are being used as a promotional-tool to promote the proposed idea and Rahul Mehta, a wannabe-politician himself.

And, off-wiki evidence along with the edit-summary at this edit indicates that the article-creator has an undisclosed COI.

Furthermore, some integrally linked-article(s) are Right to Recall and Transparent Complaint Procedure , which has it's own share of problems and has been dispatched for it's trial by fire ∯WBG^converse 13:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG due to lack of any reliable coverage. The article is clear self promotion for a non registered right group and is completely based on WP:SPS. There is nothing salvageable here. Kudos to the nom for digging this out. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DBigXray. Looks entirely like WP:PROMO with no independent WP:RS and no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:00, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Complaint Procedure[edit]

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

I fail to see anything resembling significant coverage of the subject, discussed here-in by any media-source or book or academic journals.

Frankly, going by it's proposed ramifications, if it had managed to evolve to anything beyond the brain-storming-stage, it ought to be national-fodder for a span of time and I don't remotely recollect reading anything about this in print-media.

Also, the write-up style significantly indicates that we are being used as a promotional-tool to promote the proposed idea and Rahul Mehta, a wannabe-politician himself.

And, off-wiki evidence along with the edit-summary at this edit indicates that the article-creator has an undisclosed COI.

Furthermore, an integrally linked-article is Mineral Royalties for Citizens and Military, which has it's own share of problems and has been dispatched for it's trial by fire ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG due to lack of any reliable coverage. The article is simple self promotion for a non registered right group is completely based on WP:SPS. There is nothing salvageable here. Kudos to the nom for digging this out. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reverted relist. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 16:39, 12 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 Nom withdrawn. Article near-nuked and (sort of) hijacked to the generalized theme, which passes GNG, IMO. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 17:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Recall[edit]

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

I fail to see anything resembling any significant (or trivial) coverage of the subject, discussed here-in by any reliable media-source or recently published books in the Indian-political-scenario or academic journals of repute.

Frankly, going by it's proposed ramifications, if it had managed to evolve to anything beyond the brain-storming-stage, it ought to be national-fodder for a span of time and I don't remotely recollect reading anything about this in print-media.

Also, the write-up style significantly indicates that we are being used as a promotional-tool to promote the proposed idea and Rahul Mehta, a wannabe-politician himself.

Also, the reference to HT, is a fake reference in the sense that it talks about an entirely and radically different idea of recall, which further points to some probable nefarious purpose.

Furthermore, an integrally linked-article is Transparent Complaint Procedure, which has it's own share of problems and has been dispatched for it's trial by fire ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-deletion, this can be redirected to Recall election.∯WBG^converse 13:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ughh. It was created in 2012; has it been a "proposed law" ever since or was it passed? That should be easy enough to esatblish (I guess); If the former, then I votes delete, if the latter I votes keep. News outlets give bugger all, whilst GBooks makes only a vague mention of such a thing under...err...the East India Company :D although I wonder whether Google tailors my results to where I am, and thus native searches (hope I've expressed that OKm, apologies if it sounds cretinous) might bring up far more nuanced results. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, self-described-activists who are often wannabe politicians have a tendency to come up with glorious ideas as to reformation of the system.It's one such idea, which failed to get any traction out of his own website.Even the mere tabling or mention of the bill in the parliament is a far-fetched idea(:

The one, which is reffed at HT was proposed by Varun Gandhi, (an INC MP) and is radically different, way too simpler and has no minimal association with Mehta. It was rejected, though.

I did a news-search on Mehta, the brain-child of all these fuckwitted-ideas (check my contribs...) and there is expectedly not a single mention anywhere that can be prominently scoured.Obviously, as some off-wiki evidence indicates, (Check the author of a Quora answer on this topic and search for the article-creator's name + RTR, over Google:-) ) they were utilising WP for plain spamming.

And, EIC, you've crawled umm..... about two centuries back....Whilst, that's not much long and old is gold, I'm inclined to think that the article-creator won't have much admiration for the reference:-)

For a note, the broader theme was once mentioned in a parliament session, as an idea, in 1996 in a very minimal manner.The transactions are view-able over here.∯WBG^converse 14:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Also note, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, AFD is not a substitute for refimprove tags. Notable topic with widespread coverage over a large period of years, easily passes WP:GNG. A topic that attracts attention of Mainstream Media and academia leading to a detailed coverage is encyclopaedic and should not be deleted. Some of the detailed sources from Books and Media are here ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] ^[8] ^[9] --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Vajpayee, Atal Bihari (5 September 1996). "State of the Nation". Shipra Publications – via Google Books.
^ https://www.eci.nic.in/eci_main/recent/22-6-12%20feedback%20from%20people.pdf
^ "Right to recall a dangerous idea".
^ "A Critical Take On 'Right To Recall' - Live Law". 5 June 2017.
^ PTI (28 February 2017). "Varun Gandhi moves bill in Lok Sabha to recall MPs, MLAs for non-performance".
^ "Right to recall representatives a must for people: Varun Gandhi". 10 November 2017 – via The Economic Times.
^ Bhan, Indu (13 December 2017). "The Dramatic Decade – Landmark Cases of Modern India: Landmark Cases of Modern India". Penguin Random House India Private Limited – via Google Books.
^ Kumar, Sanjay (8 January 2014). "Indian Youth and Electoral Politics: An Emerging Engagement". SAGE Publications India – via Google Books.
^ Deo, V. Kishore Chandra (1 January 1993). "Changing India's political mould: a fair franchise and a federal framework". Konark Publishers – via Google Books.

There has been some in-general discussions and discourses about the broader theme of recalling elected MPs. Barring Varun, nobody ever undertook any concrete step. And, whatever you've used as references is certainly not in any form or manner linked with the subject that is currently present at the article (or rather was present from beginning). At best, you can add a section at Recall election and redirect it to the broader article, as I wrote in the nom. Nothing more.

And, whilst you can cite AFDISNOTCLEANUP, I refuse to beleive that somebody spamming WP ought be provided the oppurtunity of preserving some spam in the history of an article.

The locus that you've entirely missed is that I have no qualms on creating an article on the general locus of right to recall from an Indian perspective.It's expected (and evident) that right to recall has been discussed for every democratic country.But, the point is that it will be a generalized take on the issue and not something like the current ever-consistent version of the current article.For, pretty nothing except Varun's bill has happened on-ground.

Though I believe a better approach is to tackle all such ideas on a broader page about electoral reforms in India.∯WBG^converse 12:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WBG, as I replied on my talk page, I prefer to discuss on the notability of the article instead of the author at AfD, we can talk about the Author at ANI. You keep naming Varun Gandhi, did you miss Vajpayee ? As I said, this is not a recent topic but has been going on for years, and has amassed enough SIGCOV to merit an article of its own. I disagree with a redirect to Recall Election due to the same reasons. WP:TNT is not applicable here, not yet. regards--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the same ereference has been used by me in this very AFD, (before you) it seems unlikely that I have missed it. If you read the entire transcripts of the session, that proposed bill was near-unanimously rejected (by a strength of voice) and Vajpayee spoke for a very short time on the theme, which has been duly noted.It might be noted that multiple broad themes or topics are discussed over Loksabha proceedings and that's not an indicator of any notability. Neither are op-eds. That obviously does not contradict the fact that the right to recall is a discussed electoral reform in India in academic circles and the verity of it is beyond doubt. But we don't need to improve it by discounting our anti-promotional stances.Delete this mess and create a de-novo aryicley on the general theme, which might be merged somewhere, shall it seem to be prudential. Period.∯WBG^converse 13:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article about a proposed law that is neither non-notable nor there is potential that it cannot be written in a non-promotional way. I have no doubt that notability exists. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Corlew[edit]

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

Political candidate who has never held political office. Did not even receive his party's nomination. Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. A loose noose (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither being an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary nor being a county court judge constitutes an article-clinching notability claim, but this makes no credible claim that he's somehow a special case over and above all the other non-notable people who've done the same things. The closest thing to such a claim, that one court case he was involved in got wider national coverage than usual, is clobbered by the fact that said coverage is not about him — that coverage might support an event article about the case, but it does not help the case's presiding judge earn a WP:BLP as a person. And since both primary candidates and county court judges are simply and routinely expected to receive some local coverage in their own local media, the existence of some such coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG pass in and of itself either. All of which means that nothing here is enough to earn him a Wikipedia article — and furthermore, the article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned paid-editor. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
leaning keep. He's had a lot of civic affairs coverage over the years, culminting last year when he was President of the Lions Clubs International, and seems to have gone on the nationand and international Lions Club, with press coverage of him shaking hands with the President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen and a lot of other people. searching gNews on Corlew + "Lions Club]] brings up some of this, after you scroll past the recent election coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Per the Lions Club argument, there's some local coverage, a decent local bio, and a few name-drops where the Lions Club acted in local regions, but none of the recent other Lions Club presidents have an article (it's a year term apparently) and I don't see enough coverage that would make him independently notable as the Lions Club president. SportingFlyer talk 06:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing that might give him notability was his involvement with the highly contentious and litigated case of the Murphreesboro Mosque. However having recently moved from Sterling Heights into Detroit and thus left a city where the exact same open meetings act violation strategy was used to attack a mosque, I think this needs to be considered in a larger persepctive. Anyway, this was a strategy determined by lawyers or activitsts, and he just considered the merits, and his ruling was oveturned on appeal. Short of scholarly law journal articles giving indepth consideration of Corlew's rulings in the matter, I do not think we have enough to justify an article. Part of me suspects this may in the future be something that gets indepth analysis, but we have to remember that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is not on the cutting edge of publishing research but is supposed to reflect what has already been published in reliable secondary sources, and we do not have those indepth and considered analisists of Corlew's work to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL no notable election won or posts held. Sources covering are weak. Also agree with the contributors above. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - arguably, he might be considered a notable lawyer, based on a combination of his civic, legal, and political work, but I'm not going to bother to make that argument; the only courts he presided over was a small district. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee, 2018#District 6 where he ran. This is really the only thing he's notable for so it makes sense to redirect there per WP:CHEAP. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:04, 12 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. as a hoax. (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Star Movies (Europe)[edit]

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

No references, and so not verifiable. Not enough information to be encyclopedic.

(PROD was removed by author, so taking to AFD.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax, considering this is the logo for "Den Movies". CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the real Star Movies already exists. I'll note that the creator should probably be blocked for WP:NOTHERE, given the blatant vandalism and ridiculous xwiki time waste. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Let's not waste our time; another fantasy TV vandal throwing their literal refuse on this site; let's take away the keys to the playpen. Nate • (chatter) 14:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piwik PRO[edit]

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

Non-notable company. References consist of advertorials, routine announcements, and coverage in affiliated publications. None of these refs meet all criteria in WP:ORGCRIT. GermanJoe (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article creator transparently disclosed a conflict of interest on their user page (thank you), but drafts from connected contributors should be reviewed through the WP:AFC process before publication. The current sourcing is still far from sufficient. GermanJoe (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources limited to press releases and rewritten press releases, mostly reporting business as usual (new company secures funding, etc.). WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could you please explain and elaborate on what do you mean by the conflict of interest here? Thanks! --Szymongrzesiak (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A possible conflict of interest is not limited to the main topic Clearcode, but usually extends to all closely connected topics such as subsidiaries (and products, competitors, partners, etc.). If you need additional advice, please feel free to ask at WP:Teahouse which would be a better forum for detailed information. But the conflict of interest is not the main problem here anyway (COI-editors can create drafts for volunteer review), the lack of good independent sources with in-depth coverage is. GermanJoe (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus, only routine coverage exists - no independant analysis Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ignoring the COI for a minute, I can tell you that I would not have approved this through AfC even if the creator had submitted it there. I cannot see any coverage out there that would add up to WP:CORPDEPTH. What is available is brief mentions, general announcements, and press releases. It may be notable in the future, but not at this time. I should note that I also checked for references associated with Clearcode and found nothing that could be used there either. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Visma. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalBooker[edit]

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

PRODed this but then realized it had been PRODed before - No suitable sourcing for WP:NCORP exists. There's one excluded per "including pieces like "case studies" or "success stories" by Chambers of Commerce, business incubators, consulting firms, etc"; other sources are routine and non-independant Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing limited to press release and like. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Visma. Visma bought this minor company in 2015, although it still exists as a daughter company. --Pudeo (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is fine with me Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopular Opinion[edit]

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

Entirely and almost ridiculously sourced to itself. I can't even find anything resembling an independent source (let alone reliable and with significant coverage) for meeting WP:GNG Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never seen so many Twitter references, ouch. Nothing here suggests this passes WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent reliable sources in the article, nor have I been able to find any others not in the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Nahata[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, he is yet to win a major election. A WP:TOOSOON case as current notability is very local and limited to a city. Hitro talk 08:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No elections won so far and no notable posts held. no WP:SIGCOV and only passing mentions in the 2 articles [44][45]. The post of Deputy leader he holds in the party is not notable.[46] --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful election candidates, but this makes no strong claim of preexisting notability for other reasons. The closest thing to one, that he's a deputy leader of the party, is clobbered by the fact that the party has 21 deputy leaders according to the sources cited for it — so that doesn't constitute an automatic inclusion freebie just because the fact can technically be referenced to a cursory and unsubstantive list of all 21 of them. And since every candidate in every election everywhere always gets some campaign coverage while the election is underway, the existence of a couple of citations to campaign coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG clincher in the absence of an actual notability claim. Literally nothing here is sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, possibly WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josefine Cronholm[edit]

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

Non notable singer, with very little coverage outside of her few studio albums released. Page is unreferenced and will likely stay a permastub regardless of expansion. aNode (discuss) 08:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 11 records (issued in Sweden, Denmark and Germany) and 29 appearances on national radio listed in the Swedish national library's database of recorded sound [47]; has recieved the "Jazz in Sweden" award for best artist in 2003 [48], and has been given very positive reviews both for records [49] and live performances [50] by Orkesterjournalen, Sweden's oldest and leading jazz magazine. /FredrikT (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last two refs you've listed are Wordpress links and are not reliable, as per WP:BLOG. There are no sources on the page, so I advise you to include them as necessary if you want to avoid as WP:BLP issues. aNode (discuss) 16:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That "blog" is the offical digital edition of Orkesterjournalen; thus a primary source for these reviews. /FredrikT (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources. Per 11 records. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies, assuming sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tofael: The Tea Stall Boy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the sources are minor festival listings, which are primary sources, not independent, and trivial coverage. Among the Bengali-language sources, newsviewsbd.com and MediaTimes24 are obscure sites with no reputation for accuracy or fact checking, but The Daily Ittefaq, Bangla Mail 24, and dhallywood24.com are reliable. Dariya News is probably reliable. Searches of the usual types found additional fleeting mentions,[51][52][53] but nothing that would improve the article.

This two-minute student film by a non-notable director clearly doesn't meet WP:NFILM. There's a small cluster of coverage following the Free Spirit Film Festival audience award (11 of the 19 films screened won at least one award), and one piece the next year announcing that it would be at the Flagstaff Mountain Film Festival. Are these brief (even by Bengali standards) articles independent of the subject (not regurgitated press releases) and significant coverage, such that it meets WP:GNG? My evaluation is no, but I'm open to discussion. Worldbruce (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Channels Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ethnic Channels Group

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

Fails the WP:DEL7 requirement for valid sources. Looked to no avail. Jwribler (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails WP:NORG. News/books review shows only mentions in passing (ex. [54]) and press releases related to business as usual. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. PS. If this is deleted, than the completely unreferenced List of broadcasting licences held by Ethnic Channels Group should go to, maybe through PROD or SPEEDY, no need to waste our time here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Media companies are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they own media assets — they still have to clear the same inclusion standards as any other company, namely that they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in media other than their own self-published content about themselves, to clear WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. But even on a deep ProQuest search, I was not able to find any real coverage to salvage this with — all I got was glancing namechecks of this company's existence in coverage of other things, and its own press releases about itself. That's not what it takes to make a company notable. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deepstep (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything to suggest this guy is notable. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 11:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Emily Khine (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Square, Inc.#History. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Square[edit]

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

merely duplicates the main article. Apparently an effort by undeclared paid editor to get unjustifiable coverage here. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - There already is an article about Square, Inc. Timeline articles like this for companies are not standard practice on Wikipedia, nor should they be, and I don't see any reason for this to exist as a separate article from Square, Inc. This information is already covered there. Even if we had timeline articles on companies, they would only make sense for very major companies with long, complicated histories such as Hudson's Bay Company, not recently founded companies like this one. If there is any information in this article that is not covered in that article it can be merged but I doubt there is much that would need that treatment. Yetisyny (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Many notable events on the timeline are not present in the main article's history section. Daylen (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete are both fine; the Square, Inc. article has excessively promotional content as well, and I'm not sure if anything needs to be merged. This is the ANI thread from 2017 about the editing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Square, Inc.#History. There's no need for a separate article per WP:SIZESPLIT or WP:CONSPLIT, nor is there any good reason to present this information as a table rather than in prose (WP:PROSE: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not.") Some of the items ought to be retained in the target; others (e.g. fairly arbitrary numbers of employees) probably shouldn't. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Jurovich[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON, because he does not have any national awards or national media coverage beyond what would be WP:ROUTINE for the average college football player or undrafted NFL free agent. He has never seen any regular season/postseason game action as an NFL player. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have added three San Jose Mercury News stories about Jurovich that I think should make the article meet WP:GNG, because those articles are non-trivial profiles centered around him as an individual. I request to withdraw my nomination in the light of this new info. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Despite the nominator's withdrawal, since an outstanding delete !vote exists, this could not be closed with a speedy keep result, hence the relisting. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator's withdrawal and sources added to meet WP:GNG. Yetisyny (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Mercury News sources and the ESPN source are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Bürger[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFOOTY as has never played international football or in a fully professional league (WP:FPL). Has coached at some fully pro clubs, but only as an assistant. Article unsourced, so no indication of sufficient coverage to otherwise meet WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meets the critieria set forth in either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. MBlaze Lightning 06:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jellyman, GiantSnowman, and MBlaze Lightning, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL not satisfied. Yetisyny (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is one of Players who have played,[...]in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues (WP:NFOOTBALL) as he had appearances in the German Cup (Eintracht Frankfurt and FC Homburg) both are in fully-professional leagues (DFL). References and blue links added. bkb (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. His DFB-Pokal appearance does not satisfy NSPORT since FC Homburg play in the semi-pro Regionalliga. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see de:FC 08 Homburg#Bundesliga : Homburg left 1966 the 'Amateurliga', off 1974 '2. Bundesliga' up to 1996. bkb (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What level Homburg played at isn't the issue. The requirement isn't just to have played against a team from a fully-pro league, the team he played for has to have been one as well. Jellyman (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL, which admittedly raises rather strict criteria but it's still the pertinent guideline. -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VGG Image Annotator[edit]

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

Non-notable software. First alpha release was developed in October 2016 (per changelog on GitLab). The article contains no independent sources and is written like a product sheet. A Google search did not reveal any independent in-depth coverage (just a few passing "this tool was used" or "I liked this tool" mentions with almost no detail). GermanJoe (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed with nominator GermanJoe. Fails WP:GNG. Not notable. Yetisyny (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bell (powerlifter)[edit]

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

Happy to be wrong about this, but thought I'd throw it to the community. Seems to only reference simple listings and appears to be somewhat promotional making it fall short of WP:NSPORTS, I didn't see an exception carved out in the SNG for this. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't appear to be much beyond blogs and passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Killiondude (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see the coverage to meet the GNG. Most of the sources are just rankings, there aren't multiple cases of significant coverage in reliable sources.Sandals1 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no specific notability criteria for weightlifters, so the WP:GNG must be the basis of our votes. I do not see the kind of coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DC Young Fly[edit]

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

What makes this person pass WP:NBIO? No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, some of those in the article are already rotten away. Seems like vanity entry for a YouTuber/celebrity wannabe. PS. Article creator has been indef blocked for vandalism... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fail GNG Emily Khine (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly has not done anything of any significance. The article can be recreated if the situation changes, but it's a clear delete as it stands.Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tornado East Texas Never Saw Coming[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source to support this is listed in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NEXRAD#Coverage gaps already says pretty much everything there is to say, and this does not seem like a likely search term to warrant a re-direct. Chris857 (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non-notable tornado, tornadoes happen all the time, most of them are not on Wikipedia. Also the name of this article is rather odd. Usually named storms have much shorter names. But since this storm was so unimportant it was not a named storm. The Weather Channel writes articles all the time about every single weather event going on, that does not make them notable. They have a need to generate new content every day regardless of whether it is notable content or not. Thus there are no sources passing WP:GNG. Yetisyny (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously not the name of a tornado; it's the wording of a headline about a surprise tornado or storm. I see nothing (nor can I find it online) that makes this particular bit of weather notable, nor that the article title is a recognised term. Fails WP:GNG. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Setting aside the title, this doesn't meet WP:EVENT. There are some sources ([55], [56], [57]), but no lasting effects and no national or international significance. With four and a half years of hindsight it's clear that WP:PERSISTENCE applies: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Some of the weak sources that I found even mention this as a "possible tornado" meaning they are not sure that this can be even called a Tornado. in any case a non notable event. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Medline Industries. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curad[edit]

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

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 (companies) requirement. Seems like your average WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A national brand owned by a major medical supply company (Medline Industries) that's been around for over 60 years. Please stop calling good faith edits by editors not affiliated with the company/product "spam". It violates WP:AGF and belittles the actual problem of paid editing, which should never have been allowed. oknazevad (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't have to be paid to create spam, spam can be created in good faith by editors not familiar with WP:GNG. A company that's been around for 60 years is not auto-notable. It may well fail WP:NORG, and so far nothing suggests that this one does not fail it (again, let me make it clear: no policy on Wikipedia suggests that company's age has anything to do with notability). If you want to prove a brand is notable, find sources, like I did here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG: 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. (Emphasis mine.) The topic clearly meets GNG, which is the standard, not the article, though the article needs more sources and expansion. - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @BilCat: Would you care to share a source, or two, to prove that the topic has received significant coverage? Because the article doesn't have them, and all I see is press releases and few mentions in passing about business-as-usual activities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Medline Industries which only has a passing mention. This will improve the suggested merge target article, and is also aligned with WP:ATD-M. Also, I do not view this article as having a promotional tone, which is complementary to merging. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Medline Industries since subject verifiably lacks independent notability. Otherwise, Delete ipso facto. -The Gnome (talk) 15:52, 12 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) 16:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Zupicich[edit]

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

Unsourced stub about a person who fails WP:BIO1E. » Shadowowl | talk 17:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no indication he made any particularly significant contribution to the rescue in any event. Jellyman (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has now been sourced and the subject's notability is clear based on the historic significance of the subject's participation as a crew member who participated in rescuing Titanic survivors. Meets WP:BIO and WP:Basic. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:BIO and WP:Basic, well worded by AuthorAuthor above. Next, per WP:NEXIST the "unsourced" claim of the nominator was always irrelevant. It was equally irrelevant before and after referencing. We have no rules against stubs either. Then, per WP:BIO1E: "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." Finally, we have such a huge WP:RECENTISM problem. This is an interesting article about a historical figure. It adds balance to WP. Please nominate wisely! gidonb (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets BIO as a crew member rescuing Titanic survivors. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments of AuthorAuthor, Gidonb, and Editorofthewiki. Yetisyny (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naya Pakistan[edit]

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

No references, neutrality disputed and already much of the information about the subject under Imran Khan and PTI articles Jibran1998 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NOTNEO. It is just a political slogan with passing mentions in news articles.
Keep This is the government's main ambition, to make Naya Pakistan. The article can be improved. Did you try WP:BEFORE? You can find a good amount of coverage on this. Knightrises10 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. Seems like an easy redirect. It's covered there, but neither the sources nor WP:NOPAGE indicate a good case for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf per Rhododendrites; it's another campaign slogan that no matter what country or political system there is, is run-of-the-mill (and nobody would ever argue about going back to an old system). Nate • (chatter) 02:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HGTV Dream Home[edit]

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

Not notable? Most sources are primary, and the only other information is WP:BLP1E-related. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs work, but there are a ton of independent sources out there that cover it. It is about what is out there, not what is in the article. Here are 4 independent sources that came up out of the first 10 google results [58] [59] [60] [61]. Did you search before nominating? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Galatz's sources establishing notability. This is not a biography of a living person so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Also this has happened multiple times annually, not just one time, so even if we did apply that, it would pass the test. Additionally it is inherently notable because it involves something on a widely-watched cable TV network that recurs regularly over years. Yetisyny (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~keep~~ no consensus. For transparency, see rationale for result, and result change, here. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Haven (Australia)[edit]

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

Note: this was kept in 2006 as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizza Haven. Still, 10+ years later, 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 (companies) requirement. At best, I could think we could rename it and start a list of Pizza Hut acquisitions, if anyone things this WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES entry on a defunct chain needs preserving. (Yes, notability is eternal, but I am not sure this was ever notable anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very valid AFD conversation/monologue above - with all the salient anxieties about such items - (eternity, and uncertainty are not part of the life the Australian defunct food chains however), and it does have enough to keep it up there, as it got swallowed up by other pizza companies... JarrahTree 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major national pizza chain in its era. Needs expansion, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was multinational (in New Zealand too). Ajf773 (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It always seems to me that defunct companies are more appropriate for recording in an encyclopedia than extant ones and the rationale for the revamped Wikipedia:Notability (companies) does not apply because there is no need "to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals". That it was separately taken over in two countries makes merging the article problematic and incorporating it into a list just makes things more directory-like. No, it meets WP:N and is OK as it is. Thincat (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are company announcements or based on company announcements. A notable topic should have references that are intellectually independent as per WP:ORGIND. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters above can link to a couple of references that believe establish notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was seeing these sorts of thing.[62][63][64][65] Thincat (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thincat, yeah, its easy type in the name and get lots of hits but the criteria for companies/organizations is much stricter than for other types of articles. Especially ORGIND and the requirement that articles must be intellectually independent. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. References must be intellectually independent. The Book "State of Mind" fails because it relies almost exclusively on an interview with Evan Chritsou. Fails as it is not Intellectually Independent and WP:ORGIND. This newspaper article contains a quote from the Kingston weekend manager, it is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. It also contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This newspaper article is marginally better but again, it does not contain enough intellectually independent information and reverts to a products and a quotation from a connected source, definitely fails WP:CORPDEPTH and probable also WP:ORGIND. This final newspaper article contains a small paragraph in the context of a larger article on a company called Franchise Developments. Again, the article is written in such a way that is appears the information originated from Franchise Developments - a connected source. It therefore fails WP:ORGIND. It also fail WP:CORPDEPTH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 05:50, September 11, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - For those looking for additional sources, I would suggest Newspapers.com if you have access. I found a little over 1,000 hits, although many of the initial ones I looked at were ads to sell franchises. I don't have an opinion on the page either way so I didn't wade through all the articles. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have the sources on Trove been consulted? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying things like "there's loads of sources" and "sources are available over there" is useless and futile, especially when it has already been said sources all appear to be based on interviews or company announcements (which fail ORGIND). Volume of sources is not part of the critiera, but quality of sources. Please link to specific sources and we can then look to see if this topic is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The company was a major, multinational chain which dominated its industry in multiple countries for many years. It is long-defunct, meaning that promotional concerns do not apply. Editors being reluctant to trawl through business coverage from decades ago relating to a household name company merely because you demanded it is hardly surprising. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Eagle Boys, which acquired Pizza Haven in 2008.~~ This is a functional WP:ATD-M that will WP:PRESERVE appropriate content, ultimately improving the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Domino's Pizza and Eagle Boys, respectively. Domino's acquired New Zealand Pizza Haven stores in 2005 (news article) and Eagle Boys acquired Australian Pizza Haven stores in 2008 (news article). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a suitable merge, as Pizza Haven was acquired by different operators in different countries - as you'd see if you'd read that the nominator suggested a merge with Pizza Hut. Beyond that, it can't "preserve" appropriate content - it was a huge competitor of Eagle Boys for decades, so either you make half the Eagle Boys article about a competitor they acquired, or you reduce a company that was as big and as notable as your proposed target in its time to a footnote. Absolutely nothing in WP:ATD-M suggests that this would be a suitable merge candidate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read the nomination, in entirety. It states, "At best, I could think we could rename it and start a list of Pizza Hut acquisitions". It does not suggest merging with the Pizza Hut article at all, it suggests the potential of creating a new article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - How does it make sense to merge to one company when in whole countries it was acquired by a different company, and when this company was as big and as notable as the one you're suggesting it merge with? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have modified my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In addition to the sources in the article, below are more sources.

Doudle, C.; Baldwin, K. (2005). State of Mind: The Success Secrets of 50 South Australian Entrepreneurs. Wakefield Press. pp. 25–28. ISBN 978-1-86254-684-4.
Pizza Today. Pro Tech Publishing and Communications. 1994. pp. 50–57.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response I already commented on the first book reference. It fails because it relies almost exclusively on an interview with Evan Chritsou. Fails as it is not Intellectually Independent and WP:ORGIND. The second book reference is to a trade journal called "Pizza Today" from 1994 and is pretty much a verbatim interview with Chritsou, also is not intellectually independent and fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Proposal for merge can be discussed on the talk page if editors want to go forward with that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nexcare[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 (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded since it was previously prodded and deprodded, my bad - but the article is still failing notability policies, so time for an AfD review. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A national brand by a major manufacturer is pretty much the opposite of non-notable AfD is not a substitute for cleanup. And that op-ed is deeply flawed because, bluntly, it fails WP:AFG. It is not a valid deletion rationale. PS, I also de-prodded Curad as a national brand with over 60 years of continuous use owned by a major medical supply company is also easily notable. Just because they haven't become genericized trademarks like Band-Aid doesn't make them on-notable. oknazevad (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum. You fail WP:BEFORE in all your actions, too. Prodding Elastoplast, a brand so notable that its name is as much a genericized trademark as Band-Aid in British English (a fact that is sourced in the article) proves you should not be AfD'ing anything, as you cannot bother to do the required work. This should be speedy closed as not in good faith. oknazevad (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't matter if something is known to you. Others, like myself, might have never heard of it. Just because a company has a 60+ years history doesn't make it notable. The onus to prove notability is on the one's writing the article and wanting to keep it. We have policies I cited, and I did before - and all I see are press releases and mentions in passing. You fail to provide good argument (sources) outside WP:ITSNOTABLE; so if anyone needs a policy refresher, it's you. If you want to prove something is notable, best way is to find sources, like I did here. Please try to help with the spam, not help the spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two-fold problem is that a) you're tagging articles that already demonstrate notability (Elastoplast already proved its notability with the dislctionary reference) and b) you keep misusing the term "spam" which specifically means an unsolicited commercial message. Unless it's paid editing, the word you're looking for is "cruft", which can be an issue, but is good faith editing. oknazevad (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid points, although I would dispute that a dictionary reference is enough for notability. It is indicative of notability, but not guaranteed. Anyway, I agree now that E...plast is notable, but well, we are here to discuss Nexcare. Which, pehraps, is not a spam - but it is rather 'crufty'... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Oknazevad's original Keep vote, although I think that addendum was not entirely civil towards Piotrus. I am not in favor of a speedy keep, let's keep this discussion going please. I assume good faith for both Piotrus and Oknazevad. Let's try and keep things civil and have everyone assume good faith, those are Wikipedia policies after all. I have respect for both of you, please show respect for each other. Yetisyny (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 3M, which presently has no mention. A clear alternative to deletion (WP:ATD-M) that will WP:PRESERVE appropriate content, rather than deleting it away. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn by Nom and also per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 20:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tortit[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 (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:OtterAM (creator) with no rationale, no new sources and no talk post. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company/product spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well known snack with a fairly long production history (back to 1975). Coverage around Barghouti wolfing it down clearly pushes it over GNG.[66][67][68] Ample gBooks and gNews hits, that are indepth and independent of the company, cover this product in a non-Barghouti context - טורטית - e.g. [69][70][71][72][73].Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Icewhiz: If you say so, then I am sure there is something to it - but if you could use some of those sources to expand this a bit, I'd be happy to withdraw this nom. Considering the tiny size of the current article, DYKing wouldn't be that much of a trouble, what do you say? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I might spruce it up a little, but I wouldn't DYK it (not the sort of article I would DYK). You are correct we have plenty of PROMO content - however this particular article is not promotional (and its creation, just by looking at the date, was prodded by the Barghouti incident). Most food item brands with a 40+ history tend to be notable - at least from my experience.Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: If you could transwikify Grześki in the text to plwiki - I'd be much obliged - forgot the syntax for that.Icewhiz (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Icewhiz: I am not sure exactly what you are asking for, perhaps you mean this: Grześki [pl]? (PS. The Polish article IMHO fails notability; I'll take it to Polish AfD). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Linking Grześki (in current text) to https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grze%C5%9Bki - but if you are taking it to Polish AfD.... No need.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it may quite well be kept. Pl wiki has very poor notability standard, I really got fed up with it after it kept an article about a minor engineering company based on a blog that just mentioned one of its engines is used in a tractor... yeah, really. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Icewhiz: This time sufficient sources where find for notability of Grześki brand that I am sure it will be fine to link it (I am withdrawing my Polish AfD for this article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sweet little article about a candy bar, as per sourcing by Icewhiz, above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that text Icewhiz added – essentially saying that this is the second most popular Israeli candy bar – is a nice claim of significance to add to the article. The product is pretty well known – for example if you Google "Klik (candy)" (made by a different Israeli company) Google will also suggest Tortit under "related items" (this was true even before I added the Wikilink). I certainly didn't intend this article to be promotional, I just noticed after Tortit was in the news for a while (as Icewhiz guessed above) that it didn't have an article despite being pretty common. OtterAM (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my nomination, sources found and added seem to be sufficient for demonstrating notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Everybody agrees there's plenty of sources. Everybody agrees the sources are reliable. What people don't agree on is whether the sources are 1) independent of the subject and 2) not routine coverage. There's also disagreement about whether we should be looking to WP:NCORP or WP:GNG for guidance, but I don't see that as the fundamental disagreement here. The fundamental disagreement is about the quality of the sources, and that would be a problem no matter which guideline we tried to measure them by. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Desportivo Águias de Camarate[edit]

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

Not notable, virtually all sources are affiliated with the subject. Rosguill^talk 04:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But it is a sport club so of course speed keep... is what some people will say, I am sure. Well, I symphatize with deletion of sport cruft articles, we are way too friendly to sport spam (kick a ball, you are notable), but I'd appreciate a more detailed review of sources. While maybe half of the sources are primary, including at least one Facebook refs, others don't appear to be that affiliated with the subject. They may well not be reliable, but if you make claims they are all bad, well, prove it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The team in question is a non-professional 5th-level team in Lisbon. As for the sources, the only one that is significant coverage and isn't affiliated with the subject is No. 9, which is a Portuguese sports publication documenting one match that Aguais de Camarate played in. Googling that publication's name (Record Portugal) together with Aguais de Camarate returns two other articles, both of which give fairly trivial coverage of the subject. Rosguill^talk 04:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Águias de Camarate played in the national third division in 1999-00 and while not every Segunda Divisiao team has an article, they do appear to have been consistently significantly covered at least in that season: [74] and in seasons afterwards: [75] (seems to be a lot of historical coverage in record.pt) and have a new synthetic pitch [76] and even apparently hosted Madonna (not really significant coverage, but still!) [77] [78]. Also played in the Portuguese cup for several seasons, starting in the second round. The article needs significant cleanup and I wouldn't be adverse to a draftify. SportingFlyer talk 06:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer - has played in the national cup, standard notability for football clubs. Giant Snowman 11:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [spam, possibly copyvio removed--SN54129] --15:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Daniel AR Pires (talk)
Delete Since WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't apply to teams (it's to individual players that playing at the national level equates to notability), WP:GNG applies, which relies upon in-depth and persistent coverage in reliable sources which is simply not available. This is not really a surprise: it is a local club with a stadium capacity of 1500. Yes, it makes claims as to various achievements, but they are not backed up with sources, and this is very much a case that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daniel AR Pires: I have removed much of your post as it was merely an advert, which is what Wikipedia is not. In the meantime, you are welcome to expand on your !vote, but please keep it based on the policies and guidelines of the English Wiipedia. Many thanks. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "exceptional" about this - it's simply a translation of the Portuguese page for a club which played in the national cup and third division 18 years ago, which generated consistent press coverage in those seasons in spite of its overall low stature. SportingFlyer talk 19:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Since the argument to delete the article was lack of sources, I went search and now it has over 40+ sources that back up all the achievements. --Daniel AR Pires (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC) (Duplicate !vote struck - Vanamonde (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The objection was notability of sources, not sheer number of sources. Looking at the revisions, all of the sources that were added appear to be score listings from zerozero.pt (like this ^[1]), which does not constitute significant, in-depth coverage as mandated by WP:GNG. These sources are fine for substantiating the various claims they're attached to regarding Camarate's performance in local tournaments, but they do not demonstrate notability of the subject as a whole.Rosguill^talk 19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, it makes claims as to various achievements, but they are not backed up with sources..." by —SerialNumber54129, This sources back up all the achievements of the club, proving that all that is written is true. And zerozero is an official reliable site that contains all the results, achievements, history, etc., from every club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel AR Pires (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not demonstrated that these achievements are notable: I don't see any reason that winning a non-professional district-level tournament should be considered notable unless it has significant coverage in reliable sources. While ZeroZero may be reliable in reporting scores, its coverage is not significant or in-depth. I would expect to see multiple sources reporting long-form articles (in Portuguese is fine) in order to consider the coverage significant and in-depth. Additionally the content currently included is downright misleading: the awards list currently lists "National Champion" and "Win [sic] the Europa League Champions League". However, this does not refer to the well-known Europa League or Champions League, but some non-professional tournament held in Loures, whose only citation is the website of the group hosting the tournament. Rosguill^talk 20:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the official Europa League of Initiates echelon, they win it against a foreign team from europe, and there are other sources that can confirm all the achievements but ZeroZero is the main Sports official source, the other ones are trust worthy too, but its unnecessary to put more than 2/3 sources stating the same facts.--Daniel AR Pires (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I believe that at this point there is no further need to prove that these scores are accurate.~~ I can't seem to find anything by googling "Europa League of Initiates". Are you sure you translated this name correctly? Additionally, attempting to google "Champions in Loures", which appears to be the name of the tournament in question, only returns sites affiliated with the organization hosting the tournament, which doesn't appear to be affiliated with FIFA or any other readily recognizable European soccer organization. At any rate, more important than identifying this tournament, is providing evidence of significant coverage of the team: that means full-length articles about the subject from reliable third-party sources, not just score summaries. Rosguill^talk 00:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already changed the name from Europa League Champions League in Loures to "Europa League/Champions League in Loures" which means there can not be a confusion because based on grammar the use of (" ") is referring to a name in particular, so since the name of the tournament was "Europa League/Champions League in Loures", and not "Champions League", or "Europa League" only, so now the name is politically correct. Regarding the lack of third-party sources i'm trying every day to add more and more sources, but it takes time.--Daniel AR Pires (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify the significance of the "Champions in Loures" tournament? Based on the content at ^[2] the tournament appears to be a children's tournament, advertising competitions for ages 8-and-under to 15-and-under, as well as "medals for all participants" (Portuguese: medalhas para todos os participantes). I don't see any indication that this tournament is associated with a professional soccer league, other than your insistence that it is "the official Europa League of Initiates echelon", which once again is not something I can find online by that name. Rosguill^talk 18:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's what they call to the tournament, the organization tournament is "Champions in Loures" and then there is a "Europa League", the organization calls it "Europa League Champions in Loures" that is the real name of the tournament, if it is linked to the official UEFA, FIFA, etc. I can not assure you, but see for yourself -> ^[3] ^[4] --Daniel AR Pires (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When first asked to justify this tournament a few replies above, you said It is the official Europa League of Initiates echelon, they win it against a foreign team from europe. Perhaps we misinterpreted each other, but at the time I took this comment to imply that this tournament was significant and affiliated with an official Europa League body. This last reply seems to confirm that this tournament is not in fact a professional tournament and is not a priori notable. If you agree with this assessment, I have no further comment. Rosguill^talk 18:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For additional consideration, there is reason to believe from the edit summaries for the article that Daniel AR Pires has a conflict of interest, as they claim in their most recent edit summary that text they provided was "reviewed by the President of the club". This is in addition to a lot of content that they have previously written in the article that is in the first-person plural. Rosguill^talk 00:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood what I meant in the edit, that the text they provided was "reviewed by the President of the club", it means that what "Serial Number 54129" was trying to delete from the history of the club, was reviewed by the president on the source that I attached to the text. Which means it is all correct. And the content that is in the first-person is actually a (Text by the author of Mestre Armandino Santos, September 2015) and is in

“

quote

”

. --Daniel AR Pires (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the History in the Taça de Portugal section, which currently includes statements like

In our second appearance on the so-called "Proof Queen" of Portuguese football we were headed to Vila Franca de Xira to face Vilafranquense, we won the match 1-0 and went on to the 1/64 Round of 32 where we were lucky SC Braga in our field. Game played until today remembered by many, by the delivery of our players (who beat the same against an already renamed Braga) and by the bad weather that was felt. We lost the match 2-1 (Manel's goal).

without any quotation marks or other notation that would identify it as a quote. The source, moreover, was ^[5], which is a list of scores. Nothing in that source mentions bad weather or what the players remembered. Moreover, it's not clear how you know that the club president reviewed this..Rosguill^talk 18:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I said that it "was reviewed by the president on the source that I attached to the text." I'm referring to this attached source ^[6], this is the official website of the club, so if something is there obviously it needs to pass through the president's hands. That is why I stated that. And in the end of the "HISTÓRIA DO CLUBE" you can find: "Presentemente, o Grupo Desportivo Águias de Camarate conta com uma nova direção, desde 01 de Fevereiro de 2014." which means: "At present, Grupo Desportivo Águias de Camarate has a new management since February 1, 2014.", so that was clearly reviewed or possibly written by the president. --Daniel AR Pires (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:SportingFlyer has pointed out a number of reasons for keeping the article which I concur too, if he was able to pull those citations out of the hat I really don't think the nominator has done his homework in sending this to AfD. And SerialNumber54129 attack on the article doesn't help when Daniel AR Pires is only trying to improve the article. You two should really be using the talk page to sort out the issues instead of warring. Some of the citations are a bit suspect and certain points of the article need additional citation but overall I am happy to say this passes WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, WP:FOOTYN. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: Perhaps you would explain how WP:FOOTY (a subsection of WP:NSPORTS) clearly states that "This guideline does not cover sports teams"? And please try and assume good faith: I make no apology for removing cruft and WO:OR, which improves the encyclopaedia. I assure you: even if the article is kept, it will not be in its current form, and you would do well to advise its creator of that, instead of (as you say, with three reverts) edit-warring, moving in it out of draft space, and generally showing complete ownership over it. All those factors, as you know, are detrimental to the encyclopaedia and a collegiate working environment. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I undo what you did because you were only deleting huge parts of an article that clearly you did no research, instead of deleting you should went looking for information. Like I did, I undo your attacks and went source for more sources to improve the article, if there is anyone here violating any sort of rule, it's you because you blindly attacked an article instead of improving it. And your statement of me "generally showing complete ownership over it." it's completely false because I support and encourage others to participate on Wikipedia, I do not delete any other user edit, but what you did was not an improvement of the article but something that can be called vandalism.--Daniel AR Pires (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel AR Pires:, from viewing the diff page for those edits, the vast majority of the content you reinstated after Serial Number removed it was literally a copy-paste from the google translation of Aguais de Camarate's website^[7]. Not only is this content not from a reliable source (primary sources published by the subject are not reliable sources) and blatantly promotional, it hadn't been even slightly copy-edited and is almost incomprehensible in English. It is also a violation of WP:COPYPASTE, and possibly a WP:COPYVIO violation (I can't seem to find guidelines for assessing copyright violations for translated text. However, outside of Wikipedia, translating a text cannot be done without permission form the holder of the copyright). If you were intending to improve upon the content after pasting it into the article, I would suggest that you do so as a draft and not as a published article viewable to the public. There is no reason to accuse Serial Number of vandalism.Rosguill^talk 20:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: What he did shouldn't be done, but now those parts deleted by Serial Number are properly backed up by reliable third-party sources, I completely agree that the article needs to receive a significant copy-editing for grammar and accuracy. It should be reviewed but if it could be done quick there's nothing that should stop it of been kept as an article in my personal opinion.

With all due respect, I don't believe that the examples cited by SportingFlyer constitute significant coverage per WP:GNG. GNG very clearly states that routine and sports coverage is not significant, and as Serial Number54129 has said above, WP:NSPORT does not apply to teams (see WP:NTEAM) and says that WP:GNG is the standard to which teams are held. That leaves only municipiosefreguesias.pt as a candidate for being an RS, which is a source that I can't seem to find any third-party mention of on Google to verify reliability. Upon investigating the site, while it does have some news coverage, it also seems to double as an events announcement page and also includes a directory of businesses in Portugal, which IMO are marks against its reliability in the absence of any positive arguments. Rosguill^talk 18:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a logical fallacy to discount sports scores as WP:ROUTINE for determining the notability of teams as opposed to players - these were articles about the club and not agate. This team received consistent significant coverage the year they were in the third division. I wouldn't mind a TNT delete as this was a translate/copy/paste from the Portuguese version, but I see no reason to believe they're not notable, or to discount lots of coverage. SportingFlyer talk 19:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion illustrates a failing of the existing notability guidelines for teams, which should perhaps be raised at the Village Pump. I do see that there is an essay at WP:FOOTYN that supports your interpretation of notability, and based on that would amend my delete recommendation to a delete/draftify until the article receives significant copy-editing for grammar and accuracy, and removes self-promotional content. There are also some COI allegations that remain unaddressed. Rosguill^talk 19:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a draftify. SportingFlyer talk 22:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources currently in the article are not enough to demonstrate that the topic meets the general notability guideline ~~or the notability guideline for organisations and companies~~, both of which require not just routine coverage (which I believe would be an accurate description of the sources linked above by SportingFlyer) but significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I haven't been able to find any other sources that would indicate notability. It's possible that there are Portuguese-language or offline sources that I've been unable to find (the latter especially given that they apparently saw their most successful season in 1999/2000), but I would expect that, if that were the case, Google News would turn up a little more than it does. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sports clubs do not fall under WP:NCORP. I don't remember exactly which AfD I remember the argument being made, but they were specifically removed from NCORP maybe a year ago? Also see my argument above about how "routine" coverage of match recaps actually demonstrates notability for sports teams (as opposed to players), because routine coverage for clubs shows the club was notable enough to be consistently covered in the media (at least the year they were in the third division.) Contrast this to club scores in agate, or notability for a player. SportingFlyer talk 22:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite several sources been about the results that is very important to prove they're both true and reliable which helps the article as a whole. But not only that, you can see now after some editing it was added some considered amount of articles about the subject from reliable third-party sources like: ^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] ^[12] ^[13] and others... However I completely agree that the article needs to receive a significant copy-editing for grammar and accuracy. It should be reviewed, but nevertheless it's a well rounded relevant and backup article, so give it a time to get it's grammar and accuracy and there is nothing more to criticize. --Daniel AR Pires (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me of that. I'd assumed, I now realise probably incorrectly, that there was a pertinent distinction between sports teams narrowly construed and the sort of organisation this article is about, which comprises multiple teams across multiple sports. Perhaps it's a grey area; either way, I've struck that part of my vote, though I believe the rest still applies. As far as WP:ROUTINE is concerned, the guideline simply doesn't provide enough detail to conclusively say whether or not it applies to the sources in question, so your interpretation is no less valid than mine. We can't consider these things entirely in isolation though, and my sense that ROUTINE applies is informed by the broader context I outline in my final sentence above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided are enough to pass GNG, thanks to the excellent research above. Smartyllama (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, I know this goes against the grain, but if we see sources of this sort as counting towards GNG, our bar is too low. I have spot-checked the sources, and I do not see them rising above the level of routine local sports coverage. Even high-school sports teams frequently receive coverage of this sort. Vanamonde (talk) 19:55, 12 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. "Delete" votes are mostly focused on the subject's unsuccessful Senate campaign and failure to meet NPOL, but do not address the argument that his other activities have received sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ziser[edit]

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

Failed U.S. Senate Candidate in 2004; Unelected official and activist with no notability to show for his work. Had some controversies, but they were minor and can be merged onto the election page. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, and the only coverage/sources on him are passing mentions on the Senate candidacy. Redditaddict6 9 08:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 08:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 08:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 08:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say delete, page hasnt even been updated in nine years! Not only that but then he was just a very minor politician anyways..Antonio pain in the b*tt Martin (what do you mean?) 11:59, 27 August, 2018 (UTC)

The question to ask is, why did someone write an article about him 9 years ago?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: for the same reason most articles were written in 2007-2010, because nobody paid attention to the notability guidelines and not enough editors caught on to this. A ton of articles from then have been closed as deletes or redirects in the last year. Everyone then saw it as the place they could go make any article about anyone. Nobody knew the "rules". Redditaddict6 9 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and the "14-year test". SportingFlyer talk 01:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I do run searches before giving an opinion.) Article is paltry. However, back in the dark ages (at the turn of the century,) Ziser led a successful campaign to amend the state Constitution to define marriage as "a man and a woman." The national press and Nevada press concur that he led it, he pushed it for 4 years, and the Constitution was amended. It may not be an, er... widely admired accomplishment, but it does mean that he got enough ink in the national press, books, and scholarly journals to pass WP:SIGCOV with flying colors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't see it - those articles don't appear to be about him. SportingFlyer talk 12:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory:, I don't see it either, but if you can provide two or more links to this I'd like to see them. Someone did say something about the 14 year rule, plus it's not like the state constitution section there matters much anymore since the Federal Gov. overrides that. Gay marriage is legal by state law in Nevada, anyways (check this link, it basically says that same-sex unions have been recognized there since October 2009, 5 years before the federal legislation). Redditaddict6 9 13:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing it Proquest news archive searches, stories like: Anti-gay petition filed with the stateWhaley, Sean. Las Vegas Review - Journal; Las Vegas, Nev. [Las Vegas, Nev]05 Jan 2000: 1A. front page sotry with photo of Ziser filing the petition; SAME SEX MARRIAGES: Ballot question debated, Morrison, Jane Ann. Las Vegas Review - Journal; Las Vegas, Nev. [Las Vegas, Nev]12 Sep 2000: 2B. text: Richard Ziser... insisted his effort is simply to close a legal loophole so that Nevada won't have to recognize gay marriages from other states. The only way to overcome the huge financial advantage of Ziser's group - the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage in Nevada - is to "live in a loving, monogamous relationship and set examples of what gay marriages are about," said Steve Oates, a retired computer specialist. Ziser insisted the amendment is not a form of discrimination and that if the activists want to discuss changing the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, they should bring that out into the open and say so." (yada yada) And more similar stories, Some in national press. In addition, take a look at scholar and books. Heading up a movement that succeeds in amending a state constitution looks like notability to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note' that some editor has appended a list of sources to the article; I checked a couple of the links and they worked. Could be used to improve article. In addtion to sources that come up in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: would you support merging this article over to the 2004 Senate election? Just the stuff he was recognized for (gay marriage issues and candidacy) or potentially merging to another article such as gay marriage laws in U.S. states? Redditaddict6 9 22:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let it run for a couple more days, not only to see what others think, but because I can often see more clearly after backing off for a few days.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Interests in Community Conflict: Beyond the Culture Wars,edited by Paul A. Djupe, Laura R. Olson, Baylor University Press, 2007, Chapter 3, "Sweet Land of Liberty; The Gary Marriage Amendment in Nevada," by Damore, Jelen and Bowers, pp. 51-72 discusses or cites Ziser on almost every page. It is only one of the several academic sources that discuss his anti-gay marriage work, which did continue at least up to 2015 to have INDEPTH coverage in the Nevada press, at that point the issue was maintaining the distinction between marriage and legal domestic partnership. This issue (gay marriage) is not one Ihave followed at all closely (well, I did happen to be walking past City Hall at the moment the first gay couple emerged legally married gay couple emerged, and I joined the clapping and threw a handful of the confetti somebody was handing out.) I am hoping that an editor more familiar with the politics of this over the last couple of decades ago will weigh in. If not, I'll revisit later in the week.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good-Redditaddict6 9 23:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think KEEP. WP:SIGCOV coverage of him as a activist on social issues - opposing gay marriage and abortion. And he got the state constitution amended.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing provided by Gregory shows that at least academics think that Ziser was key to the proposal passing in Nevada. I was serving as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Nevada in 2000 and can say most assuredly that key to the success of the proposal was active encouraging of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to financially assist and assist with time the campaign. This included large financial contributions from areas that were not financially well-off, such as the region close to the Nevada Las Vegas Temple, and active support from Democrats who had served in the state legislature. Official political action requests on the part of the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is very rare, so when it happens it has a very high power to bring about results, and this was seen in the Protect Marriage Campaign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No matter where you stand on the same sex marriage issue (I am in favor), we ought to have policy-compliant biographies of the most important activists on both sides of that controversy. The sources brought forward in this discussion are adequate to establish notabilty. I appreciate the insight on LDS political activism from Johnpacklambert. Although those observations do not belong in the article, they are useful here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in popular and academic sources is more than sufficient to pass WP:BASIC, and could certainly form the basis of a more thorough article on the subject. Bakazaka (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The present article portrays him only as a failed political candidate (which is classically NN). If we are to keep the article (according to emerging consensus), the article needs to be amended to reflect what people have found. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree – the article presents no notability. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE that although it has been headed "political stances" , the subhead "political activity" was expanded and sourced a week or so ago with material about Ziser's statewide campaigns, the one that succeed in getting a constitutional amendment on "Protection of Marriage", and ones that failed to pass other similar measures.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The decision to keep an article or not is not based on the content of the article, but the available content that could be added to the article. If reliable, especially scholarly, published sources exist that cover the topic of the article of course we want to have it remain. Deletion is not for cleanup, but we clearly do not delete articles just because they do not currently establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply – Could we do WP:TNT? Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 22:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redditaddict69, while we are always happy to welcome new and enthusiastic editors. It is important that you slow down long enough to validate the assertions you make. In this case, you, and Peterkringiron, made assertions without reading material that had been added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see everything about him added. I have read and reread the page and don't see every demonstration of notability that users have mentioned as a reason to keep the article. Currently, this is just a bunch of bulleted notes in a semi-unorganized manner. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And where is notability demonstrated? Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has already identified several sources contributing to notability, and a search in ProQuest reveals many more, dozens of which predate the run for office. Those are suitable sources, and they exist. As pointed out above, according to WP:N they do not have to be in the article currently. Also worth noting is WP:SOURCEACCESS, part of WP:V, which says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." WP:GNG is satisfied. Bakazaka (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The in-line sourcing is solid. But this is an old page with a list of bullet point articles appended. Someone could use them to improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if nobody fixes this article, then it's still not a good article. If we Blow up + start over, it'll have a clean slate and as a result, flow better and look better. This has been AfDed for weeks now and only citation improvements have been added, not structural. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 12:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article/subject pass WP:GNG? I nominated this AfD because of that policy. I see very few sources about him. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't BludgeOn. It's redirecting the content towards the nomination issue. Other arguments are Straw Man because I never mentioned them. if no discussion on nomination, then the close result won't be accurate. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 12:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is an article about a political activist who headed up a statewide campaign to pass a controversial constitutional amendment almost 20 years ago. As I often do, I used a Proquest News Archive search to check notability when I first came upon this at AfD. It is paywalled. I do not know how to get around the problem that editors blessed with the ability to cross pricey paywalls can find sources that many editors cannot find. I run into this frequently at AfD. Zizer is also validated by INDEPTH in a book that I added to the page. But in many cases, paywalled archive searches are our best safeguard against our endemic WP:PRESENTISM bias.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he comes from a politically involved family, but who doesn't? He ran and lost once. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bradford (social entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG the sources are either affiliated (stanford, yale africa leadership, learning lab, agln, echoing green, africa leadership, skoll) passing mentions (fast company), don't mention him (Forbes, NPR) PR releases (Brand south africa, business wire ) routine coverage (spoke at Rotarians breakfast meeting) or local boy done good story (Kalamzoo gazette). Article created by a COI probably undisclosed paid editor and since been edited by no less than 4 WP:SPA. Draftified as paid edit and not meeting criteria and moved back by the original COI editor who has declined to reply to my request for disclosure Dom from Paris (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have drastically modified the article to help save from deletion. There are much better references from Fast Company, a published book (HBR), Le Monde, Brand South Africa, Business Wire, Forbes, NPR, Paris Match. I have also added neutral profiles from TEDx, Skoll, Echoing Green and a report from Seibel Scholars. It is true that the said personality maintains a low social image but this doesn't qualify the person to be WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Rao Shashanka (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)— Rao Shashanka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per analysis above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to analysis of Domdeparis and K.e.coffman, in agreement with Piotrus on this. There are serious ethical issues regarding this article that have been raised, that it may be paid advertising to raise the profile of the subject of the article, and the article does indeed read like an advertisement. Yetisyny (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pera above. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:03, 12 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 Tang Dynasty (band). (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Nian[edit]

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

A band member of Tang Dynasty, but there is no evidence of independent notability for the musician outside of the band to justify an individual article. Simply being a lecturer does not qualify the person under WP:NACADEMICS. Normally such articles are redirected to the band per WP:MUSICBIO, however, repeated removal of redirect means that assessment by the wider community may be necessary. Hzh (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless independent notability is established. Rosguill^talk 06:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tang Dynasty (band) I see nothing that shows notability apart from the band's. I don't think giving drum clinics qualifies him as an educator--and certainly not a WP notable one. Papaursa (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Banová[edit]

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

No source for notability except a single-article in a niche industry source. All other sources are directories or social media. Zubin12 (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Zubin12: An administrator (User:Bbb23) has already declined your previous A7 deletion. There's a reason why the admin declined it. You should probably reread the WP:N guidelines because this subject is notable from being featured on the front cover of a bridal magazine. Yanjipy (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An admin declining an A7 only signifies that a deletion wouldn't be controversial, Being on the front-page of a niche magazine with absoutley zero other sources doesn't fit WP notablity guidelines. Zubin12 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having trouble finding any sources the give subject coverage. Article created by WP:SPA. Potential WP:AUTOBIO issues. NickCT (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not being notable under WP:GNG. Yes, there is a reason speedy deletion was declined and this was correct, but criteria for speedy deletion are different from criteria for deletion under Articles for Deletion. Speedy deletion is narrowly defined, deletion under AfD is broadly defined. Bringing up a failed attempt at speedy deletion is irrelevant to this discussion. Yetisyny (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails our notability guidelines.--Darwinek (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cases of mass hysteria in India[edit]

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

A grab bag of incidents all described as "mass hysteria", with the only source referring to them collectively being the Hindustan Times. While individual incidents may be notable, I don't see any need to collect them all here--at worst this could be seen as POV-pushing India as a particularly superstitious country. I'm also troubled by the use of the term "hysteria" to describe a discrete psychological state, as it is no longer employed this way by medical professionals due to the term's history. Rosguill^talk 00:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The worst case would be merger into List of mass hysteria cases per WP:PRESERVE. As we have Mass hysteria in the United States, any restructuring should be systematic to avoid systemic bias. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of mass hysteria cases as suggested by Andrew Davidson. That is a category, not an article, about mass hysteria in the United States. I do not see similar articles for any other countries besides India and that seems like systemic bias against India, in keeping with the concerns of the nominator Rosguill. The nominator makes very good points and it would be best to merge this. Promoting a POV that India is a backwards, superstitious country as this article implicitly does is a case of systemic bias on Wikipedia in favor of wealthy first-world countries where most editors are from, and violates NPOV. Whatever you do, do not keep the article, if merging cannot be agreed on I would rather it be Deleted than kept. I think merging is a reasonable compromise. Yetisyny (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random grab bag. Can't imagine why anyone would be in favour of keeping this mess. Andrew's comment (linking to a category that includes standalone articles on the War of the Worlds incident and the Salem witch trials, while carefully piping the link so it looks like it leads to an article with that title) is one of the worst cases of WP:OSE I've seen since ... well ... WP:PRESERVE also doesn't apply, as most if not all of this is covered in other articles already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree regarding that comment by Andrew trying to hide that it was a category, not an article, being linked to. As far as why anyone would be in favor of keeping it, I do think that the most notable instances from this, which are not already in the List of mass hysteria cases article should be merged into there but I am not saying to merge ALL things listed in this article into there, a lot of the stuff in this article is just not that important. Obviously it would need some serious editing to get merged, only keeping the things important enough to be listed in the target article. Yetisyny (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I saw and appreciated the above. Your "merge" comment above was not my target with the "can't imagine why anyone would be in favour of keeping this" statement. I initially thought using the "thank" function would be clear enough, but then I realized that you're the only one who knows what comment of yours I was thanking you for, and others can see this discussion but won't check our thank logs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable and commonplace wiki editing to pipe a cat link to hide the technical aspect. Even if it might be confusing here, you cannot assign any sort of bad faith to such an edit, let alone bring it up at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear POV forking from the articles that no longer has these contents per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SYNTH. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: random collection of trivia; no value to the project in the current form. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Edit: As the author of the page I considered the subject of mass hysteria in India to be both notable and worthy of its own consideration. It was created as part of a general effort of mine to create and expand upon topics relating to India. I accept the criticisms offered here however (with the exception of the idea that it represents systemic bias against India) and concede that this particular page is quite flawed.Adondai (talk) 08:28, 11 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.

^ http://www.zerozero.pt/edition.php?id_edicao=1008
^ https://www.championsinloures.com/products/inicio-do-torneio-fase-de-grupos/
^ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1309310642450017&set=pcb.1309308649116883&type=3&theater
^ https://www.facebook.com/127623644007267/photos/a.589718374464456/1210356722400615/?type=3&theater
^ http://www.zerozero.pt/edition.php?id_edicao=1025
^ http://www.aguiasdecamarate.pt/joomla30/index.php/historia-do-gdac
^ http://www.aguiasdecamarate.pt/joomla30/index.php/historia-do-gdac
^ https://www.cm-loures.pt/Conteudo.aspx?DisplayId=3529
^ http://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-nacional/2--liga/varzim/detalhe/varzim-a-camarate-4-0-pobre-faina-dos-poveiros
^ http://www.maisfutebol.iol.pt/incrivel/12-02-2018/foto-depois-de-reboleira-madonna-viu-filho-jogar-em-camarate
^ https://www.cm-loures.pt/media/pdf/PDF20180301092146852.pdf
^ https://www.zerozero.pt/estadio.php?id=8172
^ http://afl.pt/osclubesdaafl/LOURES/

[1] Vajpayee, Atal Bihari (5 September 1996). "State of the Nation". Shipra Publications – via Google Books.

[2] ttps://www.eci.nic.in/eci_main/recent/22-6-12%20feedback%20from%20people.pdf

[3] "Right to recall a dangerous idea".

[4] "A Critical Take On 'Right To Recall' - Live Law". 5 June 2017.

[5] PTI (28 February 2017). "Varun Gandhi moves bill in Lok Sabha to recall MPs, MLAs for non-performance".

[6] "Right to recall representatives a must for people: Varun Gandhi". 10 November 2017 – via The Economic Times.

[7] Bhan, Indu (13 December 2017). "The Dramatic Decade – Landmark Cases of Modern India: Landmark Cases of Modern India". Penguin Random House India Private Limited – via Google Books.

[8] Kumar, Sanjay (8 January 2014). "Indian Youth and Electoral Politics: An Emerging Engagement". SAGE Publications India – via Google Books.

[9] Deo, V. Kishore Chandra (1 January 1993). "Changing India's political mould: a fair franchise and a federal framework". Konark Publishers – via Google Books.

[10] ttp://www.zerozero.pt/edition.php?id_edicao=1008

[11] ttps://www.championsinloures.com/products/inicio-do-torneio-fase-de-grupos/

[12] ttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1309310642450017&set=pcb.1309308649116883&type=3&theater

[13] ttps://www.facebook.com/127623644007267/photos/a.589718374464456/1210356722400615/?type=3&theater

[14] ttp://www.zerozero.pt/edition.php?id_edicao=1025

[15] ttp://www.aguiasdecamarate.pt/joomla30/index.php/historia-do-gdac

[16] ttp://www.aguiasdecamarate.pt/joomla30/index.php/historia-do-gdac

[17] ttps://www.cm-loures.pt/Conteudo.aspx?DisplayId=3529

[18] ttp://www.record.pt/futebol/futebol-nacional/2--liga/varzim/detalhe/varzim-a-camarate-4-0-pobre-faina-dos-poveiros

[19] ttp://www.maisfutebol.iol.pt/incrivel/12-02-2018/foto-depois-de-reboleira-madonna-viu-filho-jogar-em-camarate

[20] ttps://www.cm-loures.pt/media/pdf/PDF20180301092146852.pdf

[21] ttps://www.zerozero.pt/estadio.php?id=8172

[22] ttp://afl.pt/osclubesdaafl/LOURES/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]