Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 February	28 February >

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. Tone 11:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prithvi Singh Ravish[edit]

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

I can't figure out whether there is anything substantial or verifiable in this article. None of the refs are live, and the page's history is full of WP:COI edits by User:Ambassador.DrRavishPS (who I have blocked). I have checked the earliest version of the page, and they seem like variants on an abysmal combination of peacockery and verbosity. Maybe this is someone of notability, but this article is so poor that I suggest WP:TNT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment....um......wow! Mccapra (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources for this promotional word salad. Mccapra (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only referernce to the The Kingdom Filipina Hacienda is their blog; which itself is a strange read. His references are also strange blogs, nothing remotely approaching a WP:RS. This has the feel of a scam or a hoax. A user Embassy of KFH in India has been uploading images of flags and seals on Commons for the Kingdom Filipina Hacienda. Britishfinance (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wapt (logiciel)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Sources don't prove notability of software. The sources provided are either all primary sources or sources that do not give indication of the notability of the article subject. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Author). This open source software is a software very well known in France but also wide spread in the world. Plus, there is a French page on wikipedia.fr which i think, means that the software have its place on the platform. I don't understand why it should be remove (no ads, no promotion, only informations i tried to translate from the original version). I spend a lot of time yesterday trying to find articles in english and i put the most reliables of them (those without a commercial purpose). Thanks for your time. Ahamon97 (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Ahamon97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I added the link to the Security Certification from the ANSII's (National Cybersecurity Agency of France) website. It looks good to me as a mark of reliability. Ahamon97 (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Ahamon97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Delete. It's not the most egregious example of an article that doesn't need to be on Wikipedia, but there isn't much that demonstrates English-language notability. Non-notable orchestration tools are a dime a dozen. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 11:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Very little RS on Wapt. Doesn't meet WP:NPRODUCT. Does this article have a long-term future in WP? Britishfinance (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Recommending adding Salt as this is a re-incarnation of a deleted WAPT article in 2018 but using a different name; and with two SPAs. Britishfinance (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "delete" but someone has challenged the close on my talk page, saying there are further insights available, so I'm relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Cardondenis. @Philipnelson99: Hi Philip, You are totally right that any company can submit its software to a audit process (as it would be for Common Criteria) and may get awarded the certification if it can successfully go through the whole process. However, in addition to CSPN, WAPT also has been granted the more selective "Qualification Elémentaire" status, which "is the French state’s recommendation of cybersecurity products or services that have been tested and approved by ANSSI"^[1] (only a subset of Common Criteria/CSPN labelled software are awarded Qualification élémentaire). WAPT is actually widely deployed in French government networks. I have read and understood the notability criteria and acknowledge that a notable topic in one language Wikipedia may not be notable in English Wikipedia. I may argue that since ANSSI certification process is part of SOG-IS European recognition agreement^[2], and CSPN itself is set to be part of this recognition agreement this year, the notability goes beyond the French language boundaries. Anyway, I understand that you may ask for more references and sources, and I just think that the AfD banner should be replaced by a "reference needed" banner. My 2 cents... Thanks, Cardondenis (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC) — Cardondenis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^ https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2018/01/qualification-of-solutions_security_visa_anssi.pdf
^ https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/en/certification/common-criteria-certification/international-agreements/

I still stand with my delete vote because certifications do not equate notability. See the page on software notability for help determining the program's notability. Any software can recieve these certifications, furthermore just because a goverment prefers this software does not make it notable. Coverage in reliable sources would be an indication of notability, and none have been provided thus far. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardondenis: People often confuse Wikipedia as a record of existence, however outside of specific and historically important things (e.g. WP:PRESERVE), we apply notability criteria as well (per WP:GNG). You need to find articles (even in French as we can translate), that are from material WP:RS (e.g. major French newspapers/journals), that have done a specific piece on this topic where the piece is emphasising its notability (e.g. not just a product review). That is what would secure this.

I also notice from your edit history and Talk Page, that almost all of your contributions on WP are related to WAPT (you have deleted references to prior WAPT articles being deleted on your Talk Page for failing WP:GNG). This is fine (as is deleting your Talk Page), however, it does raise issues that you may have a WP:COI issue, and this article is WP:PROMO. Again, irrespective of these items, as per Philipnelson99, you need to find a good quality independent source that highlights notability. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has this article not already been deleted as Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/WAPT (deployment software) by @Kleuske:? Britishfinance (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We now have two SPAs, Cardondenis and Ahamon97 as Keeps here. Britishfinance (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Philipnelson99:, @Britishfinance:, @Richie333: Actually, it is one my intern, ahamon (which is back to school by now) who wrote this (approximative) translation.
He did quite a lot of work on PyScripter and I told him it would be good to translate the wikien article in French wikipedia. A lot of technical articles in IT are subpar (or worst) due to the lack of contribution. More manpower wouldn't be a bad thing, and I thought it would be a good thing to encourage a student to contribute.
He took himself the initiative to translate French WAPT article in English (his PyScripter work was related to WAPT, and WAPT is used and taught at his college). I told him he shouldn't as he would get the whole wrath of wikien upon him (no kidding, I've been there :-)...
Since the article was up, I thought it would be a best to try to improve it to a standard acceptable by the community. I have never hidden my name, you can google it and see what stuff I am working on (be it on google of wikifr). To be clear, nobody has been paid to publish this. I spent a few hours on the weekend and in evening doing this because I thought it was worth it. And yes, people at the office actually told me it is "useless and not worth it".
Anyway, in my line of work (system and network administration), people are not that much active on the "public" internet. And sadly, there are quite a lot of technical oriented Wikipedia article like for example Kerberos, LDAP, Active Directory, Samba, WSUS, etc. that are at best mediocre (and sometime plain wrong) from a technical point of view. But as long as people will think that it is "useless and not worth it" to contribute, it won't change much.
Thank you all for your time, and sorry to have wasted it. If I'll ever see this intern again, I'll blame him dearly for this :-) Cheers, Cardondenis (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big of you to shove the blame on to your poor intern. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt : Deleted twice before as failing GNG and WP:NOTPROMOTION, and it doesn't look like much has changed since the last deletion discussion. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 23:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep & Salt~~ (for what it is worth) @CaptainEek: : yes it did changed since last the last delete. There are a few things, among other qualification and qualification. But don't tell me I'm blaming the intern. He is a good guy and don't deserve to be blamed. Since it will be deleted anyway, I'd say farewell and goodbye. Cardondenis (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out as you have already voted above. Britishfinance (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and based on the insistent recreation of this topic, consider Salting also. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt' - Struck my earlier vote. Article's been deleted a few times (per CaptainEek's comment) and continues to fail GNG. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 17:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Xfinity. Sandstein 13:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xfinity Mobile[edit]

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

Declined AFC submission from Draft:Xfinity Mobile, with last declination: "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Xfinity Mobile." The mainspace version was copied from the draft without attribution, and is not a substantial improvement over the draft. BilCat (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Adds nothing over its previous iteration. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The AFC tool misbehaved when I declined. I was trying to state that it should be merged into the article at Xfinity. As I noted in my decline comment, a reader is better served to be taken to a paragraph in a longer article than to be taken to a one-paragraph stub from which they can navigate to a parent article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xfinity, which was my original recommendation at AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a manual redirect of the article before filing the AFD, but was reverted by the creator in question without comment. I considered a formal Merge discussion, but after seeing the three declines of the AFC, I felt an AFD was warranted to keep the article from being recreated again at a later date by another user without discussion. Note that I'm not opposed to having an article on the Xfinity Mobile service, but at this time it isn't warranted. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by original AfC Submitter

Hi Bkissin,

I saw that the Xfinity Mobile article was rejected and wanted to provide more context and hopes that you’ll reconsider.

Reason for rejection: The content already exists on the Xfinity Wikipedia page (parent company) and /Xfinity_Mobile redirects to that parent company's page. Being that Xfinity Mobile is a subsidiary, I believe that it should qualify for its own Wikipedia article, separate from the parent company. The company information, including the info box, would better serve people with a dedicated page.

Please let me know your thoughts and thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandsources (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I appreciate the open dialog and continued guidance for this article. If the primary concern is insufficient content, I can contribute additional copy and sources to the existing page. As with most articles, over time I anticipate that other authors may standardize and add content to the article too. The company's core information differs from the parent company (much like other subsidiaries) and if it's written correctly, I believe it would serve the community better as it's own entity article. I apologize for the short term inconvenience and appreciate your continued direction. I'll add additional unique content to this page to help meet the standards of the community. Factsandsources (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xfinity While I appreciate the user's devotion to the topic, my opinion hasn't changed since the original decline. There isn't enough information in the article to warrant a fork from the existing Xfinity article. The Xfinity Mobile article is largely a copy-paste of the Xfinity Mobile section in the original article. I'm not opposed to revisiting this topic later if a content fork is needed, but the arguement that a subsidiary needs a separate article does not work with me. Companies like Coca Cola and Deloitte have regional subsidiaries in other countries, and those would be redirected to the parent company's article.
Update - I totally understand your concern for duplicate content and hope to resolve this issue. I've updated the existing article with new content, info box edits, and additional sources. For the subsidiaries mentioned, they likely operate with the same services and products. I do understand the need to redirect particular articles to parent companies. In this scenario, the service, products and market is completely different than the parent company. Please review my edits when convenient, I'm happy to expand and refine this article until the community is comfortable with it being live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandsources (talk • contribs) 02:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you felt the need to recreate article instead of continuing to work on the draft. That's the proper place to work on an incomplete article. - BilCat (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I understand the frustration but the article already existed before my edits. I've updated and expanded the content and sources again to meet the standards of the community. Please review when you're able. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandsources (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xfinity, they don't even have their own network, I believe they use Verizon's--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyro (given name)[edit]

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

This fail WP:APONOTE because there is nobody notable with this name. While a properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list, the name fails WP:GNG, noting that Quick Baby Names and Baby Center are not reliable sources. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. APONOTE, aka WP:NNAME, applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks our general standards and requirements for name-related articles. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellitech[edit]

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

Article lacks multiple reliable and independent sources to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Since nothing much has changed since the first nomination, I do not see the reason why the opinion would be changed now. Article needs updates though --Plaxie (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right, nothing has changed since the first nomination, because this article is still mostly sourced to the company's own website. I can't find multiple reliable independent sources to support it. If you can, that's great - please add them in or share them here. Otherwise if the company has been running for 31 years and has had an article for over a decade, it's reasonable to question its notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find additional sources, though the company operates in a specific field probably not covered by mainstream media. What I found is that they indeed have set some standards for testing of integrated circuits accepted by IEEE. --Plaxie (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company of 216 employees with $43m revenues is already small, so they need to have very notable products, but they don't. Almost nothing turns up on WP:BEFORE, and most online references really trade/PR releases for the company, so fails NCORP and NPRODUCT. No major WP:RS of which they are the main subject.

The discussion at the 2008 AfD was of poor quality in my view, and some of the refs quoted would not pass now (they are really primary, being PR releases in lower tier publications). Other arguments were really ILIKEIT (it was a "no consensus" case - at best). Can't see this surviving long-term on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources necessary to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newlywed Hell[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film. Does not meet WP:FILM; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is routines notices, unselective databases, and / or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails FILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Cooper[edit]

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

This article is not only terribly written and promotional, the subject is largely unremarkable. I don't know of any chiefs of staff of small cities that are remarkable enough to have their own page, and certainly not a page longer and more detailed than the mayor himself. Page has been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colby Cooper BigDwiki (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news, and that is the best we can say for small snippets of coverage this person has received.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As submitter BigDwiki (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Salimi[edit]

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

Like Hamid Ziaei Parvar, fails to meet notability criteria for people and the sources are used to mask the lack of notability. Pahlevun (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article stands on independent reliable sources M1nhm (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you 1.) specify which of the 60 sources are reliable and independent. 2.) point out the 3 best sources on this ovesourced page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO. Wikipedia:Citation overkill: 60 sources in Farsi, no sources offered in a Latin alphabet. "Maryam Salimi" is quite a common name, but this "writer, journalist, communications scholar[1][2] and expert in visual communications particularly in infographics and news graphics.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]" is not the mathmetician, or medical/biological researcher who show up in searches. Page makes no claim to notability, indeed, it persuades of the opposite. Claim to teach at three universities without mentioning a job title at any of them. one of several authors of a manual for high-schoolers on infographics. Worked for Nassim News Agency.... Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources I checked check out, not particularly promotional, and is a reasonable meeting of both the WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Citation overkill, yes, but not as bad as Wikipedia's systematic bias against foreign language biographies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe and M1nhm: to give us a little more detail on which of the 60 sources had WP:SIGCOV. Can you each read Farsi? In particular, the assertion that she passes WP:PROF seems improbable since it would be unusual for someone without a PhD and without an appointment at a university (she appears to teach an occassional course in graphic design) to pass WP:PROF. We need policy and evidence based arguments, not assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read the top five references from the reference list. I used google translate. The sources discuss the subject directly. Google scholar shows that she is an author of some very well cited papers. The references talk about her as a researcher. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I just ran the first 5 cites thru gTranslate. 2, 3, 4 merely quote her on graphic design, all from the same newspaper, one is labeled "training session". the first source is so poetic, so different that it sounds like it may be a different Maryam Salami altogether - a doppleganger who writes poetry. cite # 5 is not an article at all, it's a list of disparate items published by the Public Relations Society". My skepticism her es fed by the extreme improbability of an article with 60 citations about a graphic design communications specialist each cited only once being notable. For notability, we need something tha tis about her - not stuff that merely quotes her. Which of the 60 cites is a profile? or something approaching WP:SIGCOV?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, no not terribly sure. I had to return to my PC to check for followed links. Apparently I only looked at refs 1 & 2. These sources talk about the subject directly, which is something. I followed the AfD fins sources links, and https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7h7LnaUAAAAJ&hl=en H-index is low at 7, but best cited paper is pretty good. "Comaximal graph of commutative rings". 2008. Is this her? Departement of Mathematics, East Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University Verified email at ipm.ir. ? Maybe not? It looks like maths. The article says "data journalism", maybe it is the same thing? "She currently lectures in Islamic Azad University", which matches. I see now she is not Mehrdad Salimi, the first author of "Chemotherapy of Mediterranean abdominal lymphoma: retrospective comparison of chemotherapy protocols in Iranian patients" So, no, I am not sure. But still, so many references seem to checvk out, for example. "Dr. Maryam Salimi was appointed as media advisor to the Agricultural and Natural Resources Engineering Organization of Iran Maryam Salimi was born in 1979 in Iran . He is a researcher in the fields of visual communication and communication and lecturer in Sura universities" ... Same lady in the picture, similar birthyears (1978, 1979). I am concerned about systematic bias and don't want to be quick to delete Iranian biographies. The https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%85_%D8%B3%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%85%DB%8C article is basically the same thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to systemic bias is to create good articles about notable Iranians who pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the claim to notability? That She exists, is a "media advisor" and "data journalist", and sometimes lectures at a university ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pahlevun:, anything to add?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flibe_Energy[edit]

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

Delete Sorry for the double entry for deletion, first time doing this and was not sure how to fix the first. Company has not produced anything noteworthy. The design section is a summary of a marketing presentation and proposed technology, and the majority of citations are to statements made by the CEO. The entire section on cost estimates rely on statements by the CEO. References are to company press releases, presentations by the company, articles written by the CEO, the company youtube channel.By the criteria of WP:COMPANY this company is not noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes911 (talk • contribs) 16:17, February 8, 2019 (UTC) ‎

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the sources of some parts of the article do not conform to proper external standards, then those should be removed - not the entire article. The company is currently working with the United States Department of Energy with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on their technology. The Department of Energy is also supporting and funding advanced reactor technology, which include this company's designs. Instead of trying to delete the page, a better attempt should be made at validating the company's claims and removing parts of the page that are either incorrect or do not adhere to Wiki standards. --TypicalBeagle (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for a company is well defined in wikipedia guidelines. Significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Of the relevant citations (eliminating those on the tech, as whether the tech is notable or not is irrelevant for discussion of whether a company based on said tech is notable) None meet this criteria. They are to statements made by the founder, links to company pages, links to company youtube channel, and links to blog posts by the founder. The lack of relevant sources makes this article indistinguishable from spam and a company trying to build notability by simply having a wikipedia page. The sources fail to pass WP:INDEPENDENT. To quote the notability guidelines for independent coverage a company "too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.". No sources pass this. If the article was cleaned up to be consistent with NPOV there would be nothing left other than a discussion of molten salt reactor technology, which already has its own wiki page. Other than a discussion of tech best left on the MSR pages, no content here passes NPOV.Potatoes911 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the content on the page should be removed. I do not think that it would mean removal of the entire company page. The company has gotten attention from multiple credible sources such as the Washington Post, Business Insider, MIT Technology Review, and The New York Times. They are also working with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (a Department of Energy Laboratory and location of the Hanford Nuclear site). Other companies in the gen IV reactor field have their own Wiki pages - Transatomic (defunct because they made serious errors in the analysis), TerraPower, and Terrestrial Energy. None of these companies are currently building an operational reactor either, do you propose they be removed as well? --TypicalBeagle (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If those references exist, they are not cited in the article. The only coverage in credible sources cited is passing and a sentence or two. As a result no reference passes: Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary as called out in the notability guidelines. Working with a National lab does not contribute inherent noteworthiness, just as being an employee of a national lab does not make the individual worthy of a wiki page. This is the first I have heard of those other companies, and whether this company's competitors are noteworthy or not and have wiki pages or not is irrelevant to the notability of the company under discussion. Potatoes911 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page fails to pass notability guidelines for a company. Squirrly Andrew (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Chu Cary[edit]

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

Article is about an actor who does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article on Wikipedia. Examples for what this actor is known for includes his appearance on Jane the Virgin, which IMDB credits as Guy#1. Sourcing in the article does not show notability. There is lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources in the article and in my own seaches.

The sources at the time of nomination are:

Youtube video of an interview - not a reliable source
National Equity Project staff list which is just to reference the subject's father and doesn't even mention the actor
Berkley university newsletter which is just to reference the subject's mother, and does not mention the actor
A cast listing which serves to verify information but is not significant coverage
The same cast list again
The actor and his brothers chared web site - not independent
A wedding photo in a magazine - not significant coverage

The actor has a role in a an upcoming netflix series, he may garner coverage in the future, but there isn't any right now. Whpq (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NACTOR at this time. --bonadea contributions talk 21:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this advertisement. “I’m blasian” isn’t notability. Trillfendi (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably. I see lots of namechecks in a search, but nothing that approaches in-depth RS. The closest I found was this interview in AsiansonFilm.com.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete if you must, but no doubt he'll be back when his Netflix series launches in "early 2019"! Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, if the series becomes notable. Somebody who has not been paid to create an article might create it then. --bonadea contributions talk 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Certainly fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:CREATIVE. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Northeast[edit]

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

I couldn't find any of the speedy deletion criteria that applied to magazines (and I don't think this is G11), and did not PROD as the article creator has recently worked on it. Does not pass WP:NME, and my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing that would pass the WP:GNG. All the references in the article are either it's own website or self published. Agent00x (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no suitable sources at all, clearly no notability. No obvious redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICS Marketing Support Services[edit]

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

This article survived PROD and Speedy deletion in 2008. No major page edits since 2012. I can't find any reliable independent sources for it now. Of the five sources currently cited one is it's own website, one local news, and 2 are membership directory listings. The entire claim to notability arises from the fifth source, showing that the firm ranked 4744th in Inc Magazine's 5000 fastest-growing companies of 2012. I conclude from this that it is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article whose sourced content consists mainly of routine industry affiliations. Nor are previous appearances in fastest-growing-company lists sufficient for notability here. The company was acquired in 2014 by Progressive Impressions International (press release), but there is no suitable redirect target. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Nabra Hassanen[edit]

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

Not a notable crime. All murders may be tragic, but not all are notable. No claim of notability, and no coverage other than immediate news-wire coverage and WP:MILL local coverage of court proceedings. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As a violation of WP:BLPCRIME edging on WP:G10 territory for naming a non-convicted suspect in a non-notable tragedy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this reasoning. The suspect pleaded guilty to rape and murder [1]. wumbolo ^^^ 18:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid argument by Simonm223, Man pleads guilty in Muslim teen's 2017 death in Northern Virginia , BBC: Nabra Hassanen: Virginia man admits murder of teenage girl; Washington Post: Sterling man pleads guilty to murder in killing of Muslim teen. Final sentencing hearing scheduled for March 2019. Simonm223 is wasting our time unless you look at the article and run a search or two WP:BEFORE making ignorant assertions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Per good referencing. And continued coverage. Also per WP:NCRIME.WP:G10 does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there continuing coverage? The article in the Richmond paper about his sentencing hearing is the type of coverage that I do NOT consider sufficient - it's local coverage of a local court hearing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to two 2018 books that rehearse the details of the case (added to the page) , there is there is a one-year-anniversary revisit in Slate: Why Nabra? One year after a Muslim teen’s brutal rape and murder, her community is still in mourning—and torn over whether her killing was a hate crime. There may be more, I just started looking.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage of the crime when it occurred was anything but WP:MILL, for a day or two the world assumed that this was a hate crime, that a girl wearing a hijab had been attacked for walking-while-Muslim, drawing coverage in the national and international press - and op-eds and columns - that do not accrue to "routine" abduction/rape/murder cases. Coverage did settle down once police investigators established that this was not a hate crime. But there was follow-up, including Slate: https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/06/nabra-hassanen-killing-one-year-later-was-it-a-hate-crime.html and 2 serious sounding books published the details. Nom's perhaps hastily written statement is inaccurate, coverage has met WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE and although it is not yet 2 years sine the murder (sentencing is scheduled for March,) there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can see on the page, this is a "road rage" murder by someone who was mentally disabled. I do not see how this can be notable encyclopedic content. Also, there was no sentence yet. This is WP:NOT and WP:Recentism. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perp has pled guilty. Has been convicted. Is awaiting sentencing, scheduled for March.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judged sufficiently mentally able to stand trial. "road rage" is in interesting way to describe chasing a girl on foot, shoving her into a car, driving to a dark place, raping her, murdering her, and dumping her body in a pond. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCRIME; sourcing is routine. No long-term significance or societal impact. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m neutral on keeping or deleting because I’m ambivalent... but it needs draftication because there is an absurd level of neutrality issues (hmm... I wonder who that might might be coming from). Trillfendi (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable crime. nableezy - 23:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - defective nomination which ought to be withdrawn. How can the nom claim "no coverage other than immediate news-wire coverage" when Slate went back on the anniversary and did an WP:INDEPTH, for example? Fact is, lack of doing a WP:BEFORE is unacceptable and causes a waste of everyone's time; hopefully the closing admin will have something to say about the "immediate news-wire coverage" claim. Clearly the case meets WP:GNG; see for example, the BBC coverage. A keeper, if there ever was one. XavierItzm (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient coverage throughout 2018 as reflected in sources such as [2] & [3], thus Keep per E.M.Gregory. Kou Dou 05:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Continuing international news coverage - e.g. BBC, described as a "high-profile killing " in a RS [4]. If there are BLP issues in regards to naming the accused - then that should be rectified in the article (by avoiding naming him) - that's not grounds for deletion. Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per BLPCRIME - I removed the accused's name. He did agree to plead guilty, but better safe than sorry - we can wait until it is all settled in court (scheduled for March). Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Not convinced by nom. No BLP issues at the moment. wumbolo ^^^ 17:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a spate of articles about non-notable crimes committed by undocumented Hispanic immigrants. O3000 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. Natureium (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep heard about this in Canada. High profile. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly sufficient sources to satisfy NCRIME. RECENTISM, MILL, BLPCRIME concerns have all been shown not to apply. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kopitiam[edit]

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

A non-notable company that should be deleted or redirected to National Trades Union Congress, which recently bought out the chain. A search for sources turns up nothing that meets WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH (possibly due to the chain sharing a name with many, many other businesses and restaurants). Furthermore, the only real coverage concerning the chain (which would still be excluded from meeting NCORP as it is a routine business announcement) is in regards to the chain being acquired by the National Trades Union Congress. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found independent reliable sources here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: I probably should have been more specific in my nomination; Kopitiam translates roughly to Coffeehouse in Malaysian, and so many venues use the name. For example, of the sources cited above, sources 1, 2, 3, and 6 refer to a cafe in New York City that is unrelated to the Malaysian company. As for the other three sources (2 of which document the same event), all three are standard company announcements/press releases and regional in nature; the former type of source do no establish notability, as WP:NCORP takes a strong stance against such trivial coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kopitam original set up in Malaysia and branches to other countries, thus the coverage fro New York Times, CBS talks about the same chain of company - see here 1 [5] is from New Strait Times which is a independent realizable source and not a press release piece. More coverage here 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note this AfD is about the Singapore-based Kopitiam Corporation, not the generic Malasian term for coffeehouse; quoting from one of the sources cited above "Kopitiam means coffee shop". In my reading of the sources shown at this AfD, I can see no connection between this Kopitiam and the New York Cafe (or any of hundreds of other venues) of the same name... perhaps I am missing something? Some sources above do mention the right Kopitiam, but only in regards to news about the upcoming merge with NTUC—the one exception is this article [6], an interview with the company's founder. My case remains that coverage of this Kopitiam is regional (confined only to Singapore), and lacking the in-depth, independent coverage for inclusion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Clearly, Cassiopeia's references do not refer to this organization (and show why just going a Google search and listing everything found is a bad idea). SamHolt6 correctly explained it above. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Disambiguate The Singapore based Kopitiam Corporation is not a non-significant company at the national. One must consider the primary audience of this article, Singaporeans, Singapore residents and visitors. With 70-80 outlets (10 outlets per search result page, 8 pages.) in a land mass 721+km2 of Singapore, many in Singapore, if not most will dine at any one of its outlets at least once (anecdotal) and they reported 1.8 million Kopitiam card (its own cashless card) being held [7]. Being a significant national company, the coverage of the company is usually within the national media, rather than at regional or international level. This stub was unfortunately not well worked on from its inception in 2004. I would vote for this to be kept and expanded. @CASSIOPEIA had threw up some articles which can be included, i.e. straws issue, the Tampines Hub issue. With sufficient time and effort, more notable events/news can be unearthed for this article from NLB's archive. There are 2000+ news articles (usually from Straits Times and other national newspapers circulated) to look through in there. However, the article should be renamed with Kopitiam (Singapore) or similar so as not to confuse people this company with the other more familiar meaning (coffeeshop Kopi_tiam), or even the Malaysian restaurant in New York, or even the Kopi tiam at Swissotel Singapore. robertsky (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Robertsky, in particular the news articles accessible from the National Library of Singapore. Significant company that has received significant coverage. I agree that this should be moved and the Kopitiam title be redirected to Kopi tiam, but I'd prefer Kopitiam (company) as the title instead of Kopitiam (Singapore) which itself is ambiguous. feminist (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. Our notability guidelines do not make an exception for political parties. The need for reliable sources is based in WP:V, a core policy. Sandstein 13:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Democratic Party (Iran)[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria. Pahlevun (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 19:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I favor keeping articles on all political parties of confirmed existence, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology. This is the sort of material our readers have a right to expect will be covered n a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you want to call this "Keep per the policy of Ignore All Rules," that is fine with me. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable political party. Political parties are not held to WP:CORP. Sources exist:
- https://fa.isdparty.org/index.php/articles/4-roham cache
- https://iranintl.com/en/iran/secular-democratic-congress-discussions-about-replacing-islamic-republic

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I presume this article needs sufficient notability by citing (more) reliable secondary sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously I don’t know one word of Persian, but from what I could decipher with translations is that this party doesn’t have general notability. I can’t find one legitimate news source for it. Trillfendi (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of the two refs in the article, one is broken and the other looks primary. Of SmokeyJoe's two refs, the first is broken (as well as the cache), while the second is the only secondary source that I can find to prove the existance of this party IranIntl.com. I scanned the founder, Esmail Nooriala, who seems more notable (he seems to have a WP page on Iran-WP), but I could not find any other sources on him linking him to this party (which is odd). Per Keeps above, if existance of a Party is sufficient, then it is a Keep; however if they need elements of GNG, then it would be a delete. Britishfinance (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't researched this enough to form an opinion, other than to note two things regarding SmokeyJoe's comment:

WP:ORG does cover political parties. From the second paragraph, Simply stated ... this includes ... political parties.
Archive.org has a copy of the fa.isdparty.org source: https://web.archive.org/web/20171116091919/https://fa.isdparty.org/index.php/articles/4-roham

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That is, no consensus to delete, but I think there is consensus to proceed as proposed by RebeccaGreen, that is, to transform this article into an article about all the uncertain ancient Larissas. Sandstein 13:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa (Thrace)[edit]

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

There is no evidence for a Larissa in Thrace. The cited reference is about Larissa (Elis), which has an article; I tried redirecting it but someone else thought it ought to exist and so lets see if anyone can find sources for a Larissa in Thrace. The Hansen reference can be found at https://books.google.com/books?id=h7kRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA499 where the Laris(s)a on page 499 is squarely in the chapter entitled Elis, not Thrace. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve found this, this and this(apparently). I’m not sure how much weight can be given to these sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also found the first two sources cited by Mccapra, and some others. It is clear that some people interpret the ancient texts to say that there was a Larissa in Thrace, and others argue that there is no need to interpret them that way, and that references to Larissa must be to Larissa (Elis). There is no mention of that dispute in the Larissa (Elis) article, and given that it seems to have been around for centuries (the sources cited here date from the early 19th century), it would probably be useful to include it in Wikipedia (though I haven't checked for more recent sources to see whether there's modern research that definitely establishes it one way or the other). But it would probably be better to include the dispute in the article on Larissa (Elis), especially as both are supposedly located between between Elis and Dyme (Achaea). RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that sounds a good way of handling this. Mccapra (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was no Larissa in Thrace. Hansen and Nielsen (Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis) list a Larissa in Elis, and four Larisa in Thessaly, Achaia Phthiotis, Troas, and Aiolis, but none in Thrace. The books mentioned by Mccapra refer to a mention of Larissa in Homer. Those dating from the first half of the 19th century have little scientific value. The third source mentions Larissa and Thrace in an enumeration, eg. "Larissa, then Thrace", not "Larissa in Thrace". The Larissa of the Iliad could be that in Troas. See discussion there and there. There is not enough ground to create an article on this city, and the discussion related to the Homeric Larissa should be included in the articles on the Larissa in Troas and Thessaly. T8612 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Very interesting comments. It there a significant level of confusion about this topic from earlier historical books, that it would still be worth having this article to clarify that it probably did not exist, and that earlier historians were wrong. Or, is it so unambiguous that such an article would be unmerited? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance:I edited the disambiguation page on Larissa and mentioned the Larissa in Thrace there. Normally, it should also be discussed in the article on the Larissa in Troad. I think there is no need for an article on the Larissa in Thrace. T8612 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and T8612 (T8612, just clarified your vote). Britishfinance (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and revise To clarify my comment above - the point about the books from the early 19th century is that they show a longstanding argument about whether there was a Larissa in Thrace or not. In fact, the second source that T8612 provided (and which was first published in 1886-1888) shows that there has been debate since the time of Strabo! That source suggests either Larisa (Troad) or "Larissa near Kyme in Aiolis"", presumably (?) Larissa Phrikonis in Aeolis. The 2003 book which User talk:T8612 also linked to has only a snippet view on Google books, but that snippet suggests that there is still confusion - or conjecture - about which Larissa is intended. This source mentions Larissa in Thessaly, which the others don't, so we have at least 3 possibilities of known places called Larissa, and the discussion about whether there was also one in Thrace. On that basis, I am coming to the conclusion that it would be best to have a separate article summarising the mentions in the ancient texts and the hypotheses about which place is intended (with a name something like Larissa (Iliad). We certainly can't have a sentence in the disambiguation page with no qualification and no sourcing - it is clearly controversial. (Pinging Mccapra, who first contributed to this discussion.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is you won't find sources for a Larissa in Thrace. At the very least, the title should be changed to something like Larissa (Homeric city), as it could well be a city not in Thrace. I have just found that G. S. Kirk in his commentary on the Iliad (vol. I, p. 257) says that Strabo "was probably wrong", and favours the Larisa in Troad:

"LARISA was a place-name particularly associated with the Pelasgoi, ancient inhabitants of Greece (cf. "Apyos, the homeland of Akhilleus, at 681, also Apollodorus 11.4.4). Strabo (9.440) mentions no less than eleven Larisas; one was north of the later Hamaxitos on the west coast of the Troad (Strabo 13.620; Cook, Troad 219-21), which would suit the proximity of this contingent to the preceding ones from in and around the Troad - although when Hippothoos dies before Troy at 17.301 it is said to be 'far from Larisa'. That caused Strabo to opt for the Larisa near Kume, further south, but he was probably wrong. The Pelasgoi are stationed near the Leleges at 10.429, and the Leleges lived in Pedasos in the Troad according to 21.86f." T8612 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant - we should have a separate article about the Homeric city, and I think we may as well keep this one, rename it and revise it. I suppose that's not a straight Keep, so I have added Rename and Revise to my vote. Whether it is Larissa (Iliad) or Larissa (Homeric city), it would make clear that it is a city named in a ca 2,500 year old text. The article's content would need to be rewritten to focus on the uncertainty of its identification, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen That was before I found the work of GS Kirk, who is a very reputable source and shows that the confusion originates in Strabo, and that he was mistaken on this point. I don't think that creating an article on a city with no source supporting its existence is worth it. I'm also not sure it would fit the notability requirement. I added GS Kirk to the article on Larisa in Troad, which is already quite developed. T8612 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and revise per RebeccaGreen. If the modern scholarly consensus is that there was no such place, but there are suggestions in older sources that there was, then I think that provides the basis of an article discussing the matter. That is exactly the kind of thing someone would be likely to look up on Wikipedia. I don’t feel strongly about what the name should be, but T8612ks suggestion of Larissa (Homeric city) looks good. Mccapra (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Note to Closer. Interesting direction this discussion is going, and I do not have the subject detail experience to re-write this article. However, the article as stands in its current form (both title and text) is a Delete. All agree there was no place of this title. I would support the calls for "Keep, rename and revise" per the material already given in this AfD by T8612 and RebeccaGreen, but given it is a new title, new text etc. (e.g. a brand new WP article), it would need to replace this one. Otherwise it is better to delete this one now and come back to the subject later. Hope that makes sense. Britishfinance (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and revise. I think RebeccaGreen has made the case for this conclusively. Whether we now believe there was a Larissa in Thrace or not isn’t this issue; as a matter of encyclopaedic principle we should record the fact that there is a long and contentious debate on the point. Thanks to her for teasing this out so clearly. Mccapra (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Apologies I've struck my !vote as I just realised I accidentally voted on this twice. Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Unicorn Split[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Entirely non-notable EP with no reliable independent sources found at all – the issue here that stops me simply redirecting it is that we appear to have a case of WP:XY, with two notable artists. Having said that, the case for keeping Classic Case's article is borderline, with little more than the AllMusic biography, so the discussion here is to decide whether to simply delete this article or redirect it to He Is Legend. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of how notable the artist(s) may be, the bottom line is that this article fails WP:NALBUM. The only thing this page offers apart from the musician's page is track listing, so it can't stand-alone. If someone wants to simply list an [non-notable] EP's track listing, they should follow the example on Daley (musician)#EPs. Horizonlove (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't even do that, frankly. Richard3120 (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is a perfect alternative if someone were willing to create a chart column on the artist(s) page or their discography page(s). That way, it is not taking unnecessary space and if a user wants to, they can listen the track listing to the EP in a hidden drop-down list. They are many pages on Wikipedia that demonstrate that example. Horizonlove (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they shouldn't, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What should not be included and MOS:DONTHIDE. If there are discography articles with track listings on them, then those track listings should be removed, not the other way around. Richard3120 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I almost closed this as No Consensus, based on most of the keep arguments being unconvincing vis-a-vis citing policy, and some of them being from accounts with relatively little experience. On the other hand, it's a little odd (as mentioned in the debate) that a nomination would come from a user with a fairly low experience level. In any case, the article (and sourcing) has evolved significantly during the course of this AfD, so many of the comments on the delete side about lack of sourcing seem obsolete at this point. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Chambers[edit]

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

Minor figure of little notability in the game industry with a few titles to his name and sources lack quality. LambdaKnight (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft space so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bibliography section with a number of books and links to their info. Going through to find other references to add, then I'll be fleshing out other sections of the page. ―Vancian | ✉ 21:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe that the sources you added affirm my "Keep" by attesting to the notability of the subject. BOZ (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User has worked on a number of significant releases in the role playing game industry, including the release of the most recent edition of Metamorphosis Alpha, the Dragonlance setting for WotC, and the creation of the Serenity Role Playing Game. There really is no question of subject's notability - the only real issue being that the article is a stub needing expansion. Further, contributor LambdaKnight is a Single Purpose Account that has specifically expanded action to include this page (as well as one other) due to their belonging to individuals in the industry who have stood up to defend the target of his primary deletion attempt, Sean Patrick Fannon, with whom he has a disclosed WP:BLPCOI. Contributor specifically mentions that attempting to delete the two other pages helps show that he is not a SPA. Regardless of our personal feelings about any person who is the subject of a Wikipedia entry, these actions are troubling and show that the notability of the article subject is not the true focus here. Wikipedia articles should not be deleted out of spite. This is LambdaKnight's third attempt to delete this article in less than 24 hours. Ceronomus (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second "attempt" to delete was a mistake. I used a Twinkle gadget which I thought did the procedure for nominating a page for deletion, but instead tagged an article for uncontroversial deletion, which I had already done. Excepting that mistake, as far as I understand, I am simply following the standard procedure. The procedure is to first propose an article for uncontroversial deletion with the associated tag. Anyone can remove that tag if they believe the deletion is not uncontroversial. That was done. The second step is to start a discussion about the deletion. If this discussion leads to the conclusion that it should be kept, then it is kept. If the discussion comes to the conclusion that it should be deleted, it is deleted. Regarding your accusation that I'm "attacking" this page because someone "defended" another person is ridiculous, but I can see how you might see it that way. In truth, the subject of this article implied that if Sean Patrick Fannon's article merits deletion, then so does his. I looked at his article and agreed. It isn't particularly well-sourced or useful. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a single secondary source which discusses them as an author in any of my WP:BEFORE searches. SportingFlyer T·C 23:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:AUTHOR, he has been recognized by being given three awards I've found so far, as well as a nomination for another. He has also written at least ten gaming books and additional short stories. He also created the Cortex system, but as far as I can tell he's the only one who has used it so I wouldn't count that as being a significant new concept, theory, or technique. I've added information on and links to the sources I found to the article itself but I think it's pretty clear that he is notable enough for the article to be left in place. ―Vancian | ✉ 03:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anything they have written pass WP:AUTHOR though? They're not the primary author of the Dragonlance game. One of the awards cites Wikipedia, which is a huge red flag for me. I'm not trying to be pointy, but the only mentions of them in the sources are a brief blurb in a blog saying they are no longer going to be vice president of a board, and a mention in a three-sentence press release. Searching for Jamie Chambers brings up other Jamie Chambers who don't appear to be related to them, unless they are a financial advisor or a TV news reporter in San Diego. There's literally no independent secondary coverage of him at all, which is a clear WP:BIO fail. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The award cites wikipedia as a tertiary source, after first citing the primary source, because I could not find a reference to who won the award 15 years ago anywhere else. It was verification, nothing more. If that's not a valid source then you're welcome to remove it but doing so doesn't remove the other source for the award. As to WP:AUTHOR, it does not require him to have been the primary or sole creator of the work. It says:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Emphasis mine. He is one of the four authors listed on the cover and directly mentioned in the awards nominations. Awards it got in a country other than his home country, the Lucca Comics awards being an Italian gaming award. So that alone qualifies as having "(c) won significant critical attention".

I have also found a number of other secondary coverage mentions of him that I have not had time to add to the article yet, but I plan to over the next few days. In some cases I'm not even sure how to cite them properly, like this. ^[1]―Vancian | ✉ 15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to reviewing the other secondary coverage. The Cherokee Tribune article, from the blurb I can see, appears to be a "local man" profile, and I can't tell how long it is. (The cite is easy, you have the author's name, publisher, and date, so you can fill in those fields.) Even, arguendo, being the third author out of four on a game is enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, which multiple independent periodical articles and reviews/primary subject of an independent and notable work have picked up the game they co-wrote? The fact the award couldn't be verified by anything apart from Wikipedia is a huge red flag to me, honestly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's less that the 2005 Origin Award can't be verified by anything else and more that it's from 14 years ago, so most places online that mention it are gone or were blogs and I've seen people get downright furious at inclusion of links to blogs. I removed the Wikipedia link and left the link to the announcement but I'll see if I can find more expansive coverage. ―Vancian | ✉ 17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many new refs have been added to bring the page with the guideline of WP:AUTHOR. Web Warlock (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're now up to two sources, his hometown's blurb on how he moved to Wisconsin to create games and this review of one of his works (I can't tell if this journal is a reliable source or not): [8]. WP:AUTHOR isn't met yet, and I've gone through every single source and I apologize, but there's almost no significant coverage of him. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Candy Twins[edit]

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

The only source is from The Sun that is deprecated as a reliable source. Also, COI - article created by User:Drumcandy, self-claimed to be a member of the band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly notable, but I'd want to see more than what's here now. What did the NME ever say about them? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: how do we know the NME ever mentioned them, and if they did, how would we find out, short of going to the British Library and spending hours trawling through back issues? If mentioned at all, it probably wasn't much, given the band's entire output appears to be one EP. A redirect to David Young (novelist) is possible, given that they are mentioned in passing there. Richard3120 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BURDEN, it's just not my problem to check that, it's the article author's. But there needs to be some sourcing, from somewhere. The Sun is poor (although I wouldn't rule it out) and we're supposed to be taking multiple sources as our baseline. But for a band at that time, I would expect the NME to cover any UK band 'worthy of mention'. Exceptions are possible - the Crucial Three situation - but they're going to be exceptional. If one of the involved editors was in the band, then don't they have a clippings file? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I agree with you, I'm just wondering where you got the impression that they might have been mentioned by the NME at some point, because I can't see any mention of that in the article. As you say, the editor probably kept clippings of every media mention they had, so if he didn't mention the magazine, my assumption is that they were never featured. Richard3120 (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the NME ever did mention them. But there's a strong correlation for UK bands between notability and the NME noticing, and vice versa. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really significant even within their (ever-diminishing) world. Not really encyclopaedic. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little on them on any search. Fail any form of WP:GNG. Found this on [[David Young (novelist}]], the ex-member, [9] saying that ""About eight years previously, I'd been in a little indiepop band (The Candy Twins) that managed to blag a tour of Germany," he tells me.". Britishfinance (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is coverage of the subject, the consensus of this discussion is that it is too routine/local to grant notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Nakić[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS Dewritech (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 05:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought it is impossible for a human being to fail any sport-related notability guideline on Wikipedia? Perhaps they are not a human but a player's pet cat? I can see this could get deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think he passes the GNG, although I'm not confident enough to evaluate the non-English sources. Playing for Croatia's national team is a respectable accomplishment. They're highly ranked by FIBA. Nakic is on Draft Express' radar, too. [10] Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS or WP:GNG. The articles in Croatian are mainly about him being named to the 24 man roster for the national team plus an interview with several of the players after Croatia finished second at the European U-20 championships. Routine sports coverage and WP:NOTNEWS. I also clarified that he was named best athlete for 2018 in the city of Šibenik--article implied it might have been for the league or nation. I'd say the article is WP:TOOSOON because he doesn't appear to notable yet. If better sources are shown, I'm willing to reconsider. Papaursa (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG through mentions in Croatian sources. [11] [12] [13] [14]. This is youth coverage, but from a national Croatian periodical [15]. Lots of other passing mentions as well. SportingFlyerT·C 03:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first source talks about his team being on a 3 game losing streak and doing team building at a waterfall before it launches into a detailed play by play of a game. I'd call that routine sports coverage. The next two articles are local coverage (urban population of Šibenik is about 50,000). The first mentions him playing at the junior euro-league tournament in Spain and then goes into detail about the team's performance. The second is a short article mentioning his being named as the best athlete in Šibenik and being invited to the 24 man roster for the national team's final World Cup qualifying games. That's more routine and WP:NOTNEWS coverage. The other two articles I can't access, probably because of my computer's security settings, but your "lots of other passing mentions" seems to hit the nail on the head. Plenty of typical sports reporting and local coverage, with having a chance to try out for the national team being the most significant. However, that alone is not enough to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodna Dalmacija is the largest newspaper in the Dalmatian region, and Vecernji list is one of the biggest dailies in the country and did a feature on him, even as a youth. There's nothing wrong with local sources, especially when those local sources are actually national. SportingFlyer T·C 03:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Local or not, and some of it is clearly local, the coverage doesn't seem to be significant to me because it's typical sports reporting. As I said, I can't access the last two articles you listed. If you believe the coverage is significant, then we'll just have to disagree (or I'll need to see better sources). Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We'll disagree, then. He's been covered specifically in two of the three largest daily periodicals in Croatia, and he was just called up to play against Poland last week [16] so even if he is deleted for not being notable, he'll be notable soon. SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to ask. What notability criteria do you think he'll meet by playing in a game against Poland? Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My argument wasn't "he'll be notable for playing against Poland" but rather "he's now playing for a major national team." SportingFlyer T·C 05:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't meet any notability criteria. Croatia finished the tournament with a 4-8 record and four games behind the last team in its group to be one of the 12 European teams to qualify for the World Cup. Nakić played a grand total of 2 minutes and none of the 37 players Croatia used in the tournament played less time.[17] I don't see how you can claim that shows notability unless you're willing to add thousands of players from the 165 FIBA nations. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails to meet WP:NHOOPS. I don't think coverage is enough to meet the GNG. I had to rely on machine translations but it seems that Papaursa's translation of the first 3 sources given by Sporting Flyer are accurate. As for the other 2 articles, one is a short interview with the Sibenik teammates that helped Croatia win silver at the European U20 tournament and the other is an interview with him after winning a contest at the 2014 Croatian all star game. I see nothing that makes him notable, at least not yet. WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL apply.Sandals1 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per speedy deletion criteria wp:G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Reynolds. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Reynolds (model)[edit]

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

Game show model.

Fails WP:BASIC:

No significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable.

Fails WP:ENT:

Individual has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Individual does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Individual has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Article was originally deleted 31 May 2015.

Subject is not the same person as New Zealand social worker and community leader with the same name. AldezD (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article was recreated after AfD you could have speedily deleted it via WP:CSD#G4. Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:G7 Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akrasia25/Locus[edit]

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

I meant to make this page a sandbox page Akrasia25 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breweries in Northumberland[edit]

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

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory and so far as I can tell, none of these are independently notable nor do they have articles. Praxidicae (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. The individual list entries appear to lack individual notability. The article seems to have been transposed from Ratebeer.com which raises questions of reliability (user edited contents). I believe lists are not copyrightable per se, however, the concern may be there. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't dispute that individual Northumbrian breweries lack notability in terms of Wikipedia's policy. As I wrote in the article's talk page, this was precisely my motivation behind the article - that together they would achieve collective notability. If this concept does not exist, then clearly the article will have to be deleted.Tammbeck (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "combined" notability. But my original point still remains is that Wikipedia is not a directory or tour guide. Praxidicae (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these are notable. Trillfendi (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTYELLOW. Ajf773 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shift (software)[edit]

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

This article looks like made underpaid contributions to Wikipedia and this software itself is not notable individually it's a complete advertisement. So Here I nominate this article for Deletion. MrZINE 11:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean undisclosed paid contributions. Although they may be underpaid, we never know. :) ^{[Username Needed]} 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they were underpaid, would they have less motivation to make it so advertorial? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant technical innovation is evident, nor is market share. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This software fails WP:GNG and I can't find a more reliable source. Skirts⁸⁹ 12:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG --Plaxie (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Article author) - Recent release notes ^[2] show ongoing development. I am a Shift customer who published this article to share information with other users and developers. I received no compensation. Further recent updates to the article add to general notability of the product WP:GNG Mcc14ne (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

^ "Living a fantasy, Man finds job in gaming industry after years as a fan".
^ https://support.tryshift.com/kb/section/45/

Delete. The company, Redbrick Technologies is not notable and registers very little from WP:RS for WP:GNG. The product itself is reviewed in various tech blogs but nothing in these reviews gives any impression that this is a notable product (sometimes it is reviewed in a group with other substitute products); so fails NPRODUCT. Britishfinance (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Tsoutsouvis[edit]

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

Even though Christos Tsoutsouvis is mentioned by many sources, I found it hard to spot a single RS that covers the subject significantly. There is a notability template (has been there since November 2017[18] ), but it has not been addressed until recently, inadequately in my opinion. (See Talk Page). Bottom line, the article violates WP:GNG. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEYMANN added a few sources, facts and am confident that a solid article can be created here, a working knowledge of German and Greek would be useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @E.M.Gregory: I have seen that you have added a couple of sources. The first one, a book by Kasimeris, mentions Tsoutsouvis once, in a 2 sentenced footnote. The second one, a a book by Busky, mentions Tsoutsouvis once, without examining him or his life. It just lists the terrorist organizations in Greece. Third is an article by NYT, only mentions Tsoutsouvis without examing is life. It is not an article on Tsoutsouvis, it is an article describing a bomb attack by a German terrorist Group, named after Tsoutsouvis. Forth is a news article describing various blasts in Europe. ("Bombs hit cities across Europe; One death heavy damage in four blasts". Ottawa Citizen. UPI. 9 September 1986.). I do not have access to it but it is reasonable to suppose that it doesn't cover in a significant extent Mr. Tsoutsouvis. The fifth source, a news article that I do not have access to it. ("Bombs hit cities across Europe; One death heavy damage in four blasts". Ottawa Citizen. UPI. 9 September 1986.) The title suggests that it is a report from a blast in Athens. So, I can't see how these links contribute to the notability of the subject. I am certain there are many more mentions in various media. But not one covers in significant extent Christos Tsoutsouvis. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article is BOTH about Christos Tsoutsouvis , and the little shootout he had with Greek police, and about the Christos Tsoutsouvis Revolutionary Organization, name din his honor, which bombed buildings in Cologne and Athens in the 1980s. Some detail already in article. Added more material about this person, much more can be added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A key person in the history of the ultra-left/anarchist militancy and terrorism in contemporary Greece. Tsoutsouvis and his organisation (see also E.M.Gregory's "Note" above) are always mentioned in the accounts of the Greek urban guerilla activity published in mainsteam media of Greece. Cf. "Τα επτά τετ α τετ από το 1977", in Eleftherotypia (May 13, 2009)· "Στα χέρια της αστυνομίας ο Λεσπέρογλου", in Rizospastis (December 26, 1999)· "Τσιγαρίδας: Αυτός ήταν ο ΕΛΑ", in Kathimerini (July 9, 2004)· "Δημήτρης Κουφοντίνας: Η αιματοβαμμένη διαδρομή του 'Λουκά' της 17Ν" @ Reader.gr (February 10, 2018) etc. Τsoutsouvis has gained iconic status for many Greek anarchist groups; see for example "31 χρόνια μετά τον θάνατο του Χρήστου Τσουτσουβή" @ Anarchy press gr (May 16, 2010). ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the borderline RS presented are about the Christos Tsoutsouvis. Yes, he is mentioned by mainstream Greek media, but there is no comprehensive work about the life of Tsoutsouvis. PS: The article at enet.gr is about seven bombs attacks in Athens. The article at Rizospastis is about another greek guerilla/terrorist. The article at Kathimerini is about ELA, a group that Tsoutsouvis was part of it (maybe we could merge). The article at reader.gr is about Koufontinas (another terrorist). Reader.gr is not RS. Anarchypress is a blog, can not use it to establish notability. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i will try to extent this article with more RS from history books. He was a key figure in Greek leftist terrorism. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not valid reasoning for keeping the article. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject does meet WP:GNG. I think the nominator has misunderstood the meaning of "significant coverage": WP:GNG explicitly states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." WP:BASIC, the notability guideline for People, says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability ..." There is no requirement for a "comprehensive work about the life of Tsoutsouvis". RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an extremely bad idea, not worth spending a discussion on. Fails about every guideline and policy on article inclusion we have. WP:IAR speedy deletion as it doesn't match a pre-existing speedy cat. Fram (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aisle information for Coles (Burwood, NSW)[edit]

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

WP:NOT - these two articles, a list of supermarket aisles, ~~and a list of lists of supermarket aisles (one entry so far),~~ represent a new project by Vitreology which is beyond the scope of this wiki. Cabayi (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reference to the list of lists since List of retail layout tables just got deleted G6. Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrorland[edit]

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

A never-published, allegedly "stolen" novel. The sources in the External links section are very weak and do not indicate the work or its author meet WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG, is not even published and from what I can see, a self-published entry which is a COI. Skirts⁸⁹ 12:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unnotable, unpublished book. There are no sources being used in the article, and the "External Links" are nothing but the authors personal blog, and comment sections on unrelated articles spamming links to said blog. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. samee converse 21:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted g5 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Praxidicae (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Banerjee[edit]

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

Most of the references are centered around him being a speaker at a delhi litfest 2016 event. Other than that I don't think there are enough sources to establish notability. Daiyusha (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been created many times by sockpuppets of a serial sockmaster, Banghrubai - see its deletion log and the deletion log for Draft:Akash Banerjee. The creator of this article is very clearly the same user, as shown in the SPI. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion G5. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea SPI is still open, so the G5 is not applicable right now. I have removed G5 and restored AfD tags. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable author comedian [19] passes GNG. No comments about Sock puppetry, let SPI handle that.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at the contribs of the creator of that page, he seems to be too desperate for the article to exist, he keeps giving me barnstars requesting me not to delete the page. Daiyusha (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5. Persistent sock puppet. A single source also doesn't prove anyone is notable. Praxidicae (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked about him and he seems to be a well recognized political commentator in India. I found him being mentioned directly or indirectly here, here, here, here and here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whilst there is some coverage of this, in the article and below, the sources cited are almost invariably very brief mentions of the "curse" and can essentially be summarised as, "you might have heard of the Aaron Ramsey curse, here's some random people tweeting about it". People reporting other people's tweets is not significant coverage satisfying GNG. Fenix down (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Aaron Ramsey[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards if the non-reliable sources (most of them) are excluded. Additionally, this is a BLP violation as Ramsey is alive. We shouldn't be perpetuating this sort of nonsense about living people. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overall, I don't think sources are inadequate, but it does create a borderline WP:BLP issue given the nature of the "topic". Above all, the story behind is so crass that it simply doesn't warrant a standalone article in an encyclopedia, and I'd definitely be against merging to Aaron Ramsey for the same reason. GregorB (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are sufficient to fulfill WP:GNG. It is a supposed sports curse along the lines of the curse of the Bambino. I'm not sure it is a BLP violation because most of the sources in it talk negatively about it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Bambino doesn't single out one living individual does it? The sources here may talk negatively about this "curse" but the existence of the article effectively legitimises what amounts to a rather unpleasant (if ludicrous) campaign against one person. Protecting living individuals from this sort of victimisation trumps GNG in my view. He is quoted in the article as saying he finds the whole thing distasteful and who can blame him? How would you feel if it was you? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly non-encyclopaedic trivia. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is sick, WP:TRIVIAL and completely non-encyclopaedic as Robin pointed out. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep do we have any sort of SNG for memes? There's a couple decent sources listed in the article, and a couple other decent sources once you get past all the normal British tabloid fodder such as the American Associated Press [20]. Looks like it does actually pass WP:GNG, and I'm not sure I see anything on WP:BLP that would exclude it? WP:BLP deals with poorly sourced contentious material, not negative material generally, and this appears well-sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 01:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly non-notable and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Giant Snowman 10:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps worth a mention in Ramsey's article, but as a standalone article, no. Number 5 7 11:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is a snow close appropriate here given the BLP violation? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the actual BLP violation? Nothing here is poorly sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the sources are not reliable but that isn't the real problem. The problem is that it perpetuates and gives credibility to the ludicrous idea that a living person's football playing kills people. Don't you see that? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily call this a "BLP violation", but if I had to formulate a principle which is arguably violated here, it would be this: when adding to a BLP something the person in question would reasonably not want to see in his or her bio, make sure the inclusion of that content has a legitimate encyclopedic justification. GregorB (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all that fussed with the content, especially considering it's a story that's been picked up internationally in reliable sources such as [21]. It passes WP:GNG, isn't a clear WP:BLP violation, and I don't see any problem mentioning it here. I'm not arguing it's not ludicrous! SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided on notability until I have more time to review the sources but I don't see this as a WP:BLP issue since nobody is seriously alleging Ramsey is personally responsible for anyone's death, just that there are a series of (mostly) unfortunate events related to some "curse". Even if we take the curse at face value, it's still obviously not Ramsey's fault, he's just scoring goals. Who or what curses things is an interesting philosophical and religious question, but really has nothing to do with this article or this AfD. In any case, there are a lot of sports-related curses and I don't see how they're a BLP issue. Smartyllama (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic trivia. Struway2 (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Today there has been an increase in coverage following 2 deaths that have followed Ramsey's NLD goal, most coming from non-British sources too so I think in light of these new sources, due consideration should be given to this fact and also the fact that most of the delete !votes aren't citing any policy base reason for deletion beyond an apparent POV. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The coverage is largely coming from unreliable sources. I don't think saying a subject is unsuitable for a serious encyclopaedia is "POV". RobinCarmody (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Excluding unreliable sources, this still passes WP:GNG. It's been talked about in sources such as Newsweek (USA) [22], the Daily News (Uganda) [23], The Guardian (international) [24], as.com (Spanish?) [25], The Chronicle (Zimbabwe) [26], NESN (USA) [27], 24Sata (Croatian, tabloid) [28]. There are a number of mentions in British tabloids, but just because the British tabloids talk about something doesn't mean it fails WP:GNG, and I don't see any arguments here that would rebut the presumption that it passes WP:GNG per WP:NOT. SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Given the number of celebrities recognized these days I would think almost anything could be linked to a number of celebrity deaths. I don't believe this "curse" has the significant coverage in reliable sources needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not yet notable, happy to restore to userspace for drafting if an editor requests it. Fenix down (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kouamé Ouattara[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Though he has signed with a Canadian club from a fully-pro league, the season doesn't start until April. Maybe it's worth to draftspace him until his debut. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I don't see him passing GNG. (some news items from his signing - [29][30]. If this 27 year old, never pro (played in college, tried to make it in France, returned to college football and a masters degree) - remain on the team in April and play - he might be notable if NFOOTY is correct.Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable based on GNG or NFOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumpy[edit]

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources. It was published in this paper, which has 2 citations according to Google Scholar. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 08:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is looking like a case of writing too soon, at best. Compare PyTorch and PyMC3 for examples of the kind of coverage we need to write an encyclopedia article on a topic like this. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Software is only 13 months old and only getting mentions in blogs on GitHub. Fails GNG and NPRODUCT, and no evidence that it will ever meet these criteria. Britishfinance (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus LaVoi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is an actor. No IS and RS found except one interview piece - Here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Great minds clearly think alike :-) CASSIOPEIA and I opened AfDs for this simultaneously, and it is this one that's linked from the article, so here is my nomination rationale moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus LaVoi (which I have closed) : PROD contested by COI editor "on actor's behalf". The actor does not come close to meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG and the article is almost entirely promotional. --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with both nominators. A review of roles at IMDB doesn't show much in the way of significant body work. Fails to meet WP:NACTOR -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is he not notable when he's an actor that has been on way more than one professional, Hollywood film and television franchise. He's worked with Steven Soderbergh, been on The Young And The Restless, and is one of the only professional actors I've ever head of who started out as a security guard, and was pulled organically into a career as a professional actor. Stop hating on this man's story! Isn't this what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? I tell you, you hard-nosed moderators make it nearly impossible for people to contribute to this thing. It's gotten out of control, and when Wiki asks for annual donations, it makes it kind of had to reach down to the bottom of our hearts to give openly when it's so torturous for regular people to contribute to this forum. It's too hard. So I hope you don't delete this page, because this actor has an interesting story. Interesting to me, at least. And to Netflix, and to soap operas, and to action filmmakers, and to Oscar-winning directors. Please don't act like relentless terrorists and delete this man's page. His IMDB shows a strong and constantly growing body of work that exemplifies the progressing career of an actor with an interesting story. Thank You. M3diaguide (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is not notable according to Wikipedia's specific criteria because he does not meet these requirements. Most actors don't - it's not a sign of being a bad or uninteresting actor, it only means that Wikipedia has special requirements and he doesn't meet them (yet). --bonadea contributions talk 14:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage of him. If his career continues and he gains significant roles in significant productions, he will no doubt become notable soon enough, but I'm not seeing it yet. We don't make these decisions based on whether or not someone's life story is interesting. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an instance of undeclared paid editing per this denial and this information. --bonadea contributions talk 16:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undoubtedly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON applies. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closing this as a matter of housekeeping: two AfD discussions were opened simultaneously, and it is the other one that's linked from the article, so I will move my rationale there. bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus LaVoi[edit]

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

PROD contested by COI editor "on actor's behalf". The actor does not come close to meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG and the article is almost entirely promotional. bonadea contributions talk 06:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Paciorek[edit]

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

Non-notable academic--the article reads like a resume, and I haven't found any secondary sources discussing him or his work. gnu 57 06:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as an academic or as a member of the Roman Catholic clergy, also per WP:NOTRESUME. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Reads like a CV. Britishfinance (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Marshall[edit]

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

A very adverty article whose subject does not have significant independent coverage in reliable sources, although as the head of a small PR firm, there's a lot of trivial coverage of the subject and coverage that quotes the subject. Marshall has won an award conferred by the Kennebec Valley Chamber of Commerce, which does not seem to me to be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Does not meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Article author) My vote is to Keep the page because she's a Forbes columnist, and often goes on the record. Plus, having a PR podcast that's well-regarded is no small feat. It seems to be enough for at least a basic page. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO. She's one of an enormous stable of unpaid, unedited, Forbes "columnists", who, like the volunteer columnists at HuffPost, are more like bloggers than paid opinion columnists. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lede says it all "She has advised the Maine Office of Tourism, Maine Office of Business Development". The refs either don't mention her, are from very localized sources (which she is acting as PR for), or getting name-checked in regional sources. Strong fail of WP:GNG. WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues here a no ordinary WP editor would write such an extensively referenced (with full citations) about such an inherently non-notable character; protects the article from being WP:A7. If I felt this BLP has a chance of being a Keep, I would edit out these refs clarify further the non-notability. Britishfinance (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. Consensus to redirect. If any content is merged, redirect can be retargeted to the appropriate section. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson HIStory statue[edit]

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

The statue was created to promote the album and tour for the album HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I, and is already covered in that article. The statue doesn't appear to have been covered by enough good sources for a dedicated article. Popcornduff (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful into the main article and redirect. I don't see any basis for a separate article. PC78 (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. Yeah, there's sources from when this promotion was going on--which one would expect from a Michael Jackson release--but everything is in context to that sole event. Beyond that, the sculpture doesn't have stand alone notability and is appropriately covered elsewhere on wikipedia, including the entry on the sculpture's creator, Diana Walczak. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree with User:ShelbyMarion. Horizonlove (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Basically, not enough people have come forward to defend keeping the article, therefore consensus is to delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Parra's perfect game[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacking the multiple sources of independent, significant coverage typically expected. Even if you accept that Minor League Baseball's website (MiLB.com) is truly independent, most of the significant coverage I find is from that same publisher, which only counts as a single source for notability purposes per GNG. This single game also fails guideline WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE; there is only trivial mention after the initial news spike. Outside the routine game summary, the rest of the article is a WP:COATRACK for Parra's career, not the game itself. Yes, this has been approved as a Good Article, but initial discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Notability_of_minor_league_perfect_game indicate this is worth a full discussion at AfD. —Bagumba (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will never agree with deleting a well-written, useful article that is not clearly non-notable. The section on Parra's career after the perfect game should be shortened, but that's not sufficient reason for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:COATRACK was not a reason to delete. It was more to point out that most of the sources in the article are about his career, not the perfect game, which could WP:MASK the lack of notability if someone concentrates mainly on the number of existing citations.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A couple of thoughts here: 1.) The reason why we have these type of articles at the MLB level (Philip Humber's perfect game, Matt Cain's perfect game, etc.) is because these type of games are so rare, they instantly receive coast-to-coast national-level attention when they happen. I'm not sure that's necessarily true at the minor league level (as a matter of fact, the one source in the article to The Tennessean, Nashville's daily newspaper looks pretty underwhelming. The fact that this wasn't the front-page feature article of the local sports section, but was relegated to a small section in the corner underneath an article about the Atlanta Braves, would tend to speak against even the local importance of this). 2.) Going along with what was said, the "Parra's post-game career" section is too long, and most of the independent sources are supporting that section. Sources like this, this, and this look great, but they all have nothing to do with the perfect game. There's no question that Manny Parra is notable, what we're trying to do here is determine whether Manny Parra's perfect game is notable. As a matter of fact, I suppose a merge to Manny Parra could be one possible option for an outcome here. 3.) I'm not sure but that a better strategy here would have been trying to get this de-listed as a GA for an over-reliance on one source, then file an AfD on it afterwards. As seen above, some people may be loath to vote delete on a Wiki Good Article. This could be an interesting test case. 4.) Whatever outcome happens here should serve as a template for how to deal with John Wasdin's perfect game, a similar article about another minor league perfect game. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- GA doesn't require notability Regarding your #3, suggesting a GA reassement, the GA criteria do not require notability. Per guideline Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles: In particular, the GA criteria do not require compliance with several major guidelines, including Wikipedia:Notability ...—Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Major League perfect games are notable, minor league ones aren't, as shown by the paucity of media coverage. Also delete John Wasdin's article and Tom Rogers' perfect game. A possible compromise would be to create a List of minor league perfect games and merge there. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This game is currently listed at List of Nashville Sounds no-hitters and List of Pacific Coast League no-hitters, which should abate concerns to WP:PRESERVE (for now at least).—Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This event was not considered notable at the time it happened (See above comment by EJ concerning media coverage) and there is no proof that status has changed since....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manny Parra, and merge any sourced material if needed. The player is notable, however this particular game of his is not, as demonstrated by the comments above. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes, there is consensus here to delete. Given that the article is a GA, I would like that consensus be even firmer before pushing the button, to forestall any drama that might ensue. If another admin wishes to delete immediately, I will not stand in the way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. It is a shame good writing has to go to waste but sources make or break notability and this looks to just be noteworthy locally.White Siddiqah (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) feminist (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elements (restaurant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. Sourcing is provided by routine restaurant reviews. We cannot include every restaurant that gets a review. Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Restaurant reviews are exactly the type of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. If The New York Times thinks a restaurant is worth writing about, the restaurant is probably notable. Most restaurants do not receive the range and number of reviews that Elements has received. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time and time again it is argued that because something has a article in the New York Times, it must be notable. I have yet to see this policy granting auto-notability to anything that can be sourced to the New York Times. The fact is the New York Times regularly covers New Jersey and this falls under WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, we can include every restaurant that is sourced as that's our policy, "Other than verifiability ... there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content." Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, the nothing should be deleted argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. If it wasn't for the Forbes article ranking it 35 in the top 100 U.S. restaurants I would be advocating delete as all other references are local (NJ is a local area of the NYT). To be meet WP:GNG, it needs at least one more major non-NY source (e.g. Washington Post, Los Angeles Times), OR to appear in another major top restaurants in America list. I could not find any. If we had an LA equivalent who only appeared in the local LA papers and the LA times (and a Forbes list), would it meet GNG. Maybe not. Remain open-minded. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case it affects your opinion, I just want to point out that the Forbes source is not written by a staff member or published in a print issue. Forbes.com "contributors" have been judged generally unreliable. Colin M (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Colin, the Forbes article is basically the equivalent of an opinion column. And much more importantly, it is nothing more than a listing, there is no in depth coverage of the restaurant in Forbes.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an bad point because it appears that the Forbes article hasn't been properly read or understood and so its content is misrepresented. The article in Forbes is not one person's listicle. It's a review of a list published elsewhere and that list was based on a survey of 70,000 places by about 3000 food experts. The exercise covered the entire USA and was organised by Steve Plotnicki who is quite a reputable pundit. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter how many people were polled, its still a list, not significant coverage as required by WP:GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources do review it, that's how you determine if a restaurant is notable. Dream Focus 03:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually every restaurant, especially finer dining, has been reviewed by local sources – this does not mean it is notable. Wikipedia is not Yelp and such local content does not guarantee inclusion. Wikipedia not being paper is not a blanket excuse to keep anything in routine local coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just coverage it gets in New Jersey, it also gets coverage in New York, and Forbes magazine even mentions it. Dream Focus 22:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York city is right next to Jersey, it's still local coverage. The Forbes article is nothing more than a list, it is not in-depth coverage and therefore cannot contribute to notability. --Rusf10 (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A city of 8 million people is next to a state of 9 million people, so you consider that local coverage? Dream Focus 11:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having considered this further (re my comments above), this restaurant is a ghost outside of the New York area; the Forbes list is not a recognised list of greatest U.S. restaurants (and it is just Forbes.com which is not Forbes), and Elements is missing in the main U.S-wide lists (e.g. here, here, here, here). In fact, I could not find Elements in any main U.S. top 50 to 100 restaurant list (never mind global top 100 restaurants). Why would WP keep an article on a notable New York restaurant that is unknown outside of the NY area? Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oof. So borderline. Feeling pretty neutral at this point. I do want to push back against the idea that a full review in the New York Times can be written off as "local". It's the newspaper of record for an area with the population of a mid-sized country and has a large readership outside of that area that sources we label "local" in the dismissive sense don't have. It's not a small town paper that reviews everything. It has little short reviews and full reviews, and this one received the latter. The notability that comes with that sort of review is why the most destined-to-be-notable restaurants open there -- because they can increase that notability much more easily there. TL;DR it's not fair, but a NYT review of something just counts for more than a review of something in the Bangor Daily News (sorry, Maine), because it covers a huge population, has to be a lot more selective, and has a wide reach. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For illustration, there are reportedly more than 26,000 restaurants in the NYC.[31] I don't know how many there are in New Jersey, but I suppose 5,000 may be a good guess. I'd say 99% of them won't receive any coverage in secondary sources, and very, very few of them will receive coverage on the level this article currently has. (Which is considerable even if restaurant rankings and reviews are excluded.) By their nature, restaurants are predominantly local businesses - Princeton, New Jersey is hardly a tourist locale - and I don't think coverage on the national level is necessary to establish notability. GregorB (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That NYT article is about a different restaurant? Is this a bad link, or did the restaurant change names, or what? valereee (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a review for another restaurant owned by the same owners -- it is a bare mention of Elements. I'm removing that source from the article. valereee (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very good spot Valereee. The case for Elements is now just ILIKEIT; not even a notable NY-area restaurant. Britishfinance (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly poor spot, Valereee and Britishfinance. :P Go to the article. Look for the only NYT source. Click it. It's a review of Elements... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, wow, that must have been a lack of coffee issue...I would have sworn I checked to see if there were any other NYT article listed! So sorry! valereee (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I still can't believe a single NY Times restaurant review makes this notable.WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources. Would someone please show me what policy says that everything the New York Times covers must be notable? Every other sources presented is indisputably local, so how have we come to the conclusion that the restaurant is notable based on one source alone?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete with the removal of the NYT article, I this falls to non-notable for me.~~ valereee (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm on the fence, but mainly to counterbalance the particularly poor delete arguments based on (a) the incorrect statement that the NYT article is not about this subject, (b) the idea that major papers in a 20-million-person metropolitan area is "local coverage", and (c) something about it not being on top lists of restaurants, which isn't part of our notability guidelines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is adequate to establish notability. The 2010 New York Times piece is clearly about this restaurant: Elements, all glass, stone and metal, offers a range of dishes, at fair prices, like chicken liver pâté; Opened in October 2008 by Stephen Distler and Scott Anderson, the chef, it is a few blocks off the tourist magnet of the Nassau-Witherspoon intersection. The 2013 review is about another restaurant opened by the same pair, and it only gives elements a brief mention, but I don't see why that mention should be excised, either. Following up one business success with another is a reasonable thing to cover in an article about the restaurant business. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by @TonyBallioni per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Altoona child sexual abuse scandal[edit]

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

It appears as though this page was previously created by a sock and then deleted. [32], [33], and [34] Meatsgains^(talk) 03:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I re-created this page as I feel it is certainly notable for an article on Wikipedia given it's scale and nature of abuse. It was deleted numerous times previously with the only reason being it was created by a sock. I do not feel however just because an article was deleted numerous previous times it should be deleted again because someone doesn't like it, and does not have adequate reason to do so. Thanks.AlbionJack (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lolipop lagelu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Sheldybett (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if not deleted move to Lolipop Lagelu as per text. PamD 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose : this very famous song and cult supposedly, so don't delete MrZINE 11:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Editor indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamzine13: Please note that your comment to oppose may be dismissed as it falls under WP:ILIKEIT. Personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content. Horizonlove (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author):- This is an internationally famous song, so don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIA3000 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: NIA3000 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NIA3000: Please note that your comment to oppose may be dismissed as it falls under WP:ILIKEIT. Personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content. Horizonlove (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It fails WP:NSONG. There are no sources to support any of the claims on the song's page. Not only that, but the grammar in this article is a little mediocre. "The melodious version of the song was sung by Siddharth Slathia along with the collaboration of American Violin player". Why not simply say "The song was covered by...." If not a delete, then most definitely a redirect. Horizonlove (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NSONG. -The Gnome (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ : WP:Songs says that, songs should be covered by several Artists, Bands or groups, the this song is also published by many Singers, bands and also used in several movies and version in other languages are also present. For every point there is given some reference to prove the point.In other words it should be added on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIA3000 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NIA3000:. You have already cast your !vote above, striking out your second vote. Britishfinance (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NSONG. Britishfinance (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep based on sources in the Russian language version of this article. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors (2007 film)[edit]

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

~~A little-known remake of a popular Soviet film. No value, no rewards, no criticism.--RTY9099 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the Russian language version of this article seems to have considerable sourcing and content that could be used to expand the English language version. matt91486 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the notability can be determined by the much better Russian language Wikipedia article here which has a good deal more content and references to multiple reliable sources so this article should stay and be expanded with the help of the Russian article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are getting close to a Keep consensus... but not quite there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Santa Semeli and the Monks. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semeli Economou[edit]

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

Subject isn't notable and article is written promotionally. Joe (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Skirts⁸⁹ 21:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santa Semeli and the Monks. The band has some notability issues of its own but that is a separate discussion. This solo article on Ms. Economou indeed appears promotional and the info given on her personal life and career outside the band is mostly unsupported and not particularly notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Connie Hedegaard. Sandstein 15:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Det 20. århundrede – De 100 mest betydningsfulde personer i Danmark[edit]

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

Appears to me to fail WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG. Madness ^Darkness 00:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Connie Hedegaard) - Nom is correct as regards WP:NBOOK. As the primary author, it's legitimate to redirect to her. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Connie Hedegaard, since subject lacks verifiable evidence of independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Renold[edit]

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

Questionable notability, not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vmavanti, I don't know what went wrong, but I deleted the second AfD and corrected the listing. Anyway, this artist probably meets WP:MUSICBIO, #5, since he's got records out with EMI and Columbia and (I assume) EPM Musique. The sourcing is terrible, that's a fact. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twice I tried to use Twinkle, and twice I got error messages. So I clicked on Twinkle Help and it gave me some ideas. I went to the deletion log page for this day. I went into the edit page. There were some syntax errors, perhaps typos, and after I changed a few things the page looked correct. Then I used Twinkle again on both articles and it appeared to work this time. So I assume the deletion log pages works (and Twinkle) unless you want to take a look. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Twinkle has these little hickups sometimes. Ha, I hope I didn't break anything, and if I did, someone will yell at me soon enough. Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tagged since 2010 as mostly unsourced and WP:COI problems. Maybe Jazzaar deserves an article, but I cannot find sufficient sources to justify this biography. – Fayenatic London 16:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As much as I like that series, this article is all unreferenced fancruft (fails WP:Notability (fiction)). Last AfD ended in 'no consensus', IMHO merge, but there is no referenced content to merge, so... worry not, this is all on Seikai Wikia, so we don't have to worry anything valuable will be lost. PS. Clearly the AfD for this article template needs a fix... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge per nom. The only real argument in favor of keeping last time starts with "Redirecting to a disambiguation and purging the content does not result in a net benefit to Wikipedia." which seems like a WP:LOSE argument to me. Gaelan 💬✏️ 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Groww[edit]

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

Non-notable company. All the news I can find (and pretty much all the sources provided here) are routine funding news (string: "groww"), and nothing more substantial than that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 03:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. Sad it took 3 weeks for such an obvious case to get a first vote... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCORP. The AfD process is getting to be a very busy affair. -The Gnome (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laxpower[edit]

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

This was deleted before (not the same version), but still does not meet any of our notability guidelines. In a word: failsGNG. Just another website, with a few notes from trivial sources that indicated it existed. Drmies (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 03:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eats Media[edit]

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

Only major, independent, reliable coverage is the NYT source. However, that was just launch hype, failing WP:SUSTAINED and WP:MULTSOURCES. This leads me to believe this fails WP:NCORP. SITH (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Garden-variety WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guantanamo Bay detention camp. To allow merging of content from history if desired. Sandstein 14:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Omar Mohammed Bin Atef[edit]

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

Unless being detained on charges of waging war against another country is default sign of notable, there is nothing notable about this individual. The articles are about the overall Guatanamo detainee program or lists of thsoe detained, nothing specifically focuses on him in an indepth way John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective) to Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Essentially a WP:COATRACK on Gitmo. There is some content (on the Ghana court case) worth having over there, and the name is a plausible search term. Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He just doesn’t have notability of himself, ironically. Trillfendi (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order - nominator Johnpacklambert, may I remind you that when one nominates an article for deletion one is expected to leave a heads-up on the user talk page of the contributor who started that article? Our decisions are supposed to be made consensually. Disinviting those likely to disagree with your nomination is not the way to reach a genuine consensus. So, could you please be more careful? Geo Swan (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mvss[edit]

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

I'd normally draftify the article, but I doubt Mvss is notable at the moment. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fail by WP:NM Saff V. (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage, all the recordings are self-released, and fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN. Papaursa (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picodi[edit]

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

Seems like yet another paid-for WP:SPA 'contribution' about bazillionth minor start up. References are press releases and their rewrites in low quality media outlets. Worse, this start up changed names several times, and tracing and verifying its history is problematic, particularly as the sources do not fully confirm that the prior names are associated with this company (while likely, this assumption is a proof that the article creator was told 'this is our former name' by the company that handed him a bunch of links and commissioned this entry). Bottom line, fails WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, fails WP:NCOMPANY, and block the spam SPA for the good measure for undisclosed paid contributions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spam. Yes, they are engaged in covert advertising and sockpuppetry. MER-C 16:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry confirmed per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tactjuda. MER-C 19:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The League (web series)[edit]

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

WP:NWEB / WP:FAILN. Not notable. Existing sources are dead, even some that are supposedly archived. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 06:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable web content. The sources, even before they became defunct, were not sufficient to pass the GNG. Three of them are very local news coverage only, and, from what I can tell from digging around, the mention in BusinessWeek was nothing more than an online poll, not an official "award" as the article tries to mischaracterize it as. And, searching for any other sources about the series besides these turns up nothing. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bell station (PAAC)[edit]

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

Rail, subway, and perhaps even light rail stations are usually said to be notable. Bus stations however? A stop on the road with (in this case) some parking places and presumably a shelter for passengers. No evidence that this is a notable subject which has received significant attention (not routine coverage) in reliable, independent sources. Feel free to add other similar bus stops from PAAC to this nomination if they have the same characteristics. Fram (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently also created one for Carnegie station. Bell is the only station on the West Busway without ridership over 200 (which is more than a large chunk of light rail stations). With some other stations largely used as park and ride commuter stations, they have ridership over 600 boardings per weekday. If we were to just keep these stations, there would be no uniformity. My basis of creating these is that all the East Busway stops have articles. I was going to finish off the West Busway today, but I'll give you a little while to see my response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacon BMW (talk • contribs) 12:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is no reason to let uniformity trump notability. Something like Herron station seems equally problematic. Listing these in the general article about the busway, fine, but I see no good reason to have separate articles about these. Fram (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*One reason why I would like uniformity however is for the adjacent station module. If, say, I didn't do Bell and Ingram, the two least used stations, this would make it basically useless. This is just one small part of each article, though so it would not be a huge deal. Bacon BMW (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a general problem with navboxes and similar things: if the succession (whether stations, mayors, ...) is between notable and non-notable subjects, then they become rather useless. Fram (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do want a third party to look over this before any thing happens. I see your point, however, I still feel like the fact that it is a station with some sort of facility where a vehicle is scheduled to stop makes it notable, but I definetly agree with some of what you are saying. Bacon BMW (talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG; significant RS coverage not found. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yifan Tang[edit]

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

Sources appear to be primarily press releases or to mention Tang in passing. He does not appear to be notable separately from his company, if his company is notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he does have publications to his name[35] and I see him mentioned in a number of news articles. He's difficult to dismiss as non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Many people have published things, which is why having publications is not a measure of notability. He needs to be more than "mentioned", and in articles that aren't just reprinted press releases. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think he is very notable, but not by wikipedia standards, I hope someone finds some references, but I can not. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Briccialdi Flutes[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG; no significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with original nominator. Actaudio (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Adomdza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page written suggests the subject is a professor just going about his normal duties. Not a notable encyclopedic topic. sandiooses^TextMe 13:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Majority of the references are WP:PRIMARY sources, which can't be used to establish notability. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in multiple reliable sources independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced, promotional text about a non-Wikinotable businessman. -The Gnome (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Peus[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced biography of a person notable only as a smalltown lawyer and municipal councillor. This is not a claim of notability that constitutes an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG -- it's referenced only to the very tops of archival navigation trees, with no clear indication of where in those trees any actual content about Friedrich Peus himself might be found, and even the search bar at the bottom of the page fails to help at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something is added to show that he was more than a NN lawyer and local politician. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can show what kind of politician he was. If they are counting him being a barrister and notary, those do not a politician make. Otherwise, the article is only in relation to his relatives, and notability is not inherited. --Kbabej (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Farmer[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the IMDB link seems to go to someone else (not just a stage name), and his name doesn't actually appear in the relevant film casts or the suitable Wikipedia articles. It's very strange, but in any case, his (stated) roles don't satisfy the requirements even if everything checked out. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOO SOON. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srinagar–Kargil–Leh line[edit]

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

Perhaps the page was created on a mere announcement backed by an archived single source which said "survey will be conducted in 2013-14". The line is non-existent as well as that survey which never took place. MehrajMir (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At present, Srinagar–Kargil–Leh is connected by road and there is definitely a proposal to create a rail line linking them. It seems it was initially announced in 2013 [36] The strategic lines include the Srinagar-Kargil-Leh railway line. A reference frm 2014 says [37] Some of the important new lines the Defence Ministry has proposed include Srinagar-Kargil-Leh. A more recent reference is [38] it says Separately, the government is also planning to connect Leh with Srinagar. This proposed railway line will pass through Zoji La and Kargil while connecting the Kashmir Valley to the northernmost part of the country.. An opinion in 2017 [39] references it as well. The most recent I found is 2018 [40] which says The decks are being cleared to build two types of railway links for Leh – Bilaspur-Manali-Leh and Srinagar-Kargil-Leh. It is seems like the project is in the pipeline. I will search for more sources.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A mere proposal does not establish notability of an article. MehrajMir (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG; no substantial coverage. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Not even a harmonica man on the platform. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whereigo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Stub article fails to meet notability criteria PTMY (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Had PROD tag added 2011-12-29, but was deleted on 2012-01-02, during holidays. Notability tag was added 2013-01-20, and deleted as of 2016-04-01. However, no reference is to a reliable independent source has been added. Only first party promotion or site links are included. It is still a stub article. Redirect to Geocaching seems appropriate. News search has very few (20) results, the one in English is not relevant, and none are recent. PTMY (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A proposed merge into Geocaching, which already covered Whereigo briefly, has been prepared. PTMY (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article could be improved and provide more information, but it has had 204 page views in the past 30 days. The subject seems to be relevant enough to attract a good bunch of people looking for encyclopedic info about it on a regular basis. --Savig (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For practical purposes, ~10-20 page views per day is essentially zero, unless crawlers are excluded from the statistics. The Geocaching page has about 800 views per day; Cat or Dog average over 7,000 per day, for comparison. PTMY (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are articles much more popular than this in Wikipedia, but there are also many articles with far less page views than this, which suggests that most page views in this article are real people. In other words, if we delete this article we would be depriving more than a hundred people every month from finding the encyclopedic article they are looking for. --Savig (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page views really don’t factor into whether or not we delete articles. You’ll probably want to refocus your arguments to focus more on whether the WP:GNG is met. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I just wanted to show that Wherigo is not a dead subject that nobody is interested in, as some might come to think. With regards to WP:GNG, I think most materials available out there on this subject are fan stuff, tutorials, forums, etc., but I find there are also some sources that might satisfy the conditions of being reliable (ie., written by people who are authoritative on the subject), having significantly covered the topic and being independent of the subject, like:
http://www.wherigofoundation.com/

https://books.google.es/books?id=zQb9OUxIMLwC&pg=PT337&dq=wherigo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj08oKYv9_gAhWm34UKHbHCAUsQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=wherigo&f=false

http://www.westozgeocaching.net.au/what-is-geocaching/how-do-i/how-to-wherigo/

...

Some more in other languages as well. Not sure if this meets WP:GNG, but I leave it there for consideration. --Savig (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t imagine a valid rationale for them being Wikipedia-level reliable sources. Two are clearly amateur fan sites, and ones a book that’s not giving me a preview at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to locate any dedicated third party coverage that would help it meet the WP:GNG. Just small talk on message boards, which doesn’t help. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a press release or two, but otherwise am in the same boat as Sergecross. Delete. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EVOS (restaurant)[edit]

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

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

Small restaurant chain (currently 4 locations in Tampa, Florida), does not meet WP:NCORP. Insufficient in-depth coverage in RS. MB 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything in reliable sources outside locality valereee (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage. failure of WP:GNG. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A local operation going about its business, with the level of local coverage which would be expected but insufficient to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Rehder[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing WP:RS. The article was WP:BLPPRODded 3 days after creation, but the tag was removed 2 days later after non-RS links to Amazon, Goodreads, Google Books and Kirkus had been added. The only current source is the author's own website. Narky Blert (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clear pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. There's no doubt that the article is meager and poorly sourced. It is odd that Bone Dry, one of his most widely reviewed works, is not listed, and that the Edgar nomination for Buck Fever does not appear in the article. But the subject meets WP:AUTHOR#3 with multiple books reviewed in multiple periodicals (a quick database search found reviews in Chicago Tribune, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sports Afield, Austin-American Statesman, San Antonio Express-News, Houston Chronicle, Publishers Weekly, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, etc etc), and the article could be expanded with coverage of the author himself, e.g. the 1400+ word profile "Hill Country character" by Patrick Beach on page D1 of the Austin American Statesman May 29, 2007 issue, subsequently reprinted in the Houston Chronicle. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a slew of book reviews and articles with INDEPTH came up in a quick news archive search. But even the simplest WP:BEFORE, running his name through a GNews search [41], turns up enough to make it clear that this one just needs a willing editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ixthuluh[edit]

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

Not clear that this band is notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to fail WP:BAND. Significant coverage is not established by the sources cited...

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.matscheko.at/	WP:SPS	~ Depends, not used as ILCs.	By virtue of affiliation.	✘ No
http://www.matscheko.at/ix_dl.html	Ditto.	~ Ditto.	Ditto.	✘ No
http://www.ixthuluh.com/	Domain name matches name of band.	? Unsure, searched for source text in image, couldn't find anything.	Seems unrelated to the band, about the 2015 Hugo Awards, for which they seem neither to have been nominated or won.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

...or those turned up by a Google Search. SITH (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A band that was active in the 1970s is less likely to have reliable online sources, and also they were not from the English-speaking world. Via a Google Books search, I found that they are often mentioned in German-language books about the history of rock in Austria and Germany, but I can find nothing but brief listings of their existence even in that line of inquiry. It appears that they were too obscure even in their own time to achieve much more than quick name-drops in long lists of other bands. Today they have a few brief mentions at trivia sites like Prog Archives ([42]), so they remain a historical curiosity for collectors but don't have enough notability for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italyabroad.com[edit]

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

A small company of doubtful notability lacking multiple independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even coverage for notability. Trillfendi (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be advertising platforms. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No indication that the club has received sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saanich Fusion FC[edit]

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

Amateur/youth soccer club in Canada. No senior team has ever played in a notable league and the article has insufficient sources. Doesn't pass GNG. Madg2011 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stark Productions[edit]

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

Only assertions are notability are that it is "award-winning" and a registered trademark. Non-notable? ViperSnake151 Talk 22:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The 'international awards' claimed look to be of very little significance. The first ref is to a spreadsheet file? As for the "New York International Independent Film and Video Festival", the article at Independent Film Quarterly suggests that this is some kind of pay-to-play vanity festival. Colin M (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite puffery such as "award-winning", there is nothing to suggest that the production company is notable. Search reveals only passing mentions and a lack of significant independent coverage, therefore fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Youth Bowling[edit]

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

Article on a junior sports programme that has been unsourced since its creation in October 2013. No substantive improvement since creation. I cannot find any in-depth coverage in independent RS. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 19:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smart securities[edit]

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

Delete non-notable, the first entire paragraph is an advertisement which I consider unambiguous but CSD been contested. Phrases like "blockchain-based digital interest that represents an ownership claim" and "We propose the industry coalesce around Smart Securities because it accurately reflects the programmability of these new financial instruments" make this an advertisement and nothing more. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to think that people actually get paid to write such drivel. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ADVOCACY for a nn topic. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smart securities is not a defined term per-se. This is a WP:TNT case of someone mixing and merging other terms together to imply something that does not exist as a defined term. There is nothing to save here. Britishfinance (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Subject is close enough to Wikinotability, but not there yet. -The Gnome (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catrinel Menghia[edit]

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

All these claims that she is a “top model” but nothing to show for it (maybe because it’s not actually true!). Per my research, she hasn’t done much to solidify NMODEL, only a smattering of jobs; there was that Super Bowl commercial years ago but it’s not like any reliable publication such as Vogue or GQ went in depth on her to even have reliable sources. Of what I could muster up from Romanian sources, she’s more known for her romantic exploits than her career. Trillfendi (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMODEL. I cannot find references to her outside of sources in article. Perhaps a Romanian speaker can help find Romanian sources, but that would indicate less than "worldwide" significance. Skirts⁸⁹ 12:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because subject fails WP:NMODEL. A stellar effort by subject's fans but ultimately there is next to nothing supporting notability. Let's walk around other-language Wikipedias to appreciate the effort: In the Spanish one, the only citations are a simple listing in Fashion Model Directory, which, like IMDB, is not reliable, and to a Gawker inheritor (here). In the Italian one, almost all citations are about her relationhsip to TV presenter Piero Chiambretti (e.g. here) or advertorials such as this and this. The Romanian Wikipedia lists a report about her relationship to footballer Massimo Brambati (here). The Swedes simply threw in the towel and put up a source-less stub. We even get AskMen (yep).Not much to go on, I'm afraid. -The Gnome (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1979–80 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team[edit]

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

Plainly violates WP:NOTSTATS on its face. Possibly WP:NSEASONS as well. I have no problem rescinding this if it can be reliably sourced with prose. SportingFlyer T·C 00:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NSEASONS, and I see there are a few other older seasons of theirs with only stats that could go as well. Reywas92^Talk 06:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, I don’t think this fails WP:NSEASONS except that the current poor article construction doesn’t hit the standard that “Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory.” But the last line of that section says: “It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.” This team was ranked in the top 10 most of the year, went to the NCAA Tournament, and had a highly-publicized regular-season game against Kentucky when both teams were ranked in the top five nationally. Sourced prose absolutely can be created and this isn’t a close case (like a middling team would be). The article needs prose written and sourced, and I am not a big fan of people writing articles and not bothering to demonstrate notability from the start, but I am even less of a fan of articles being deleted as “not notable” if the subject is in fact “notable.” Rikster2 (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have any of the delete !voters searched for sources, perhaps Sports Illustrated or old newspapers? The team was ranked in the top-10 most of year. I'm almost certain there is coverage, especially for a big-time program. Per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD, but that sounds exactly the reason this is being nominated. Failing an SNG is cannot be a sole reason to delete. Per WP:NSPORTS: Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, ...—Bagumba (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I'm less concerned with the WP:NSEASONS SNG than I am about WP:NOTSTATS. This article, as it stands, clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS, a part of WP:NOT, as it's a copy and paste job from a statistical directory. It can probably be improved, and I mentioned as such in the nomination. I've come across a lot of college basketball articles very similar to this one at AfC recently and have declined them for failing what Wikipedia is not. I noticed this one got moved to mainspace within the last couple days, so I AfD'd it. If we're going to keep articles that fail WP:NOT but may be notable once they don't fail WP:NOT, that'd be good to know. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I understand your concern. My philosophy is not based solely on whether the article is currently all stats. If the topic meets GNG, independent of the state of the article, I ask if the current stats shown are verifiable (even if not cited) and if I would expect to find such stats if the article was an FA. In this case, I would expect a table of results in an FA article. It's another question of when this ideally should have been approved from AfC. An alterative besides AfD could have been to boldly move it back into Draft namespace or reach an agreement with the approver. Perhaps that could be an option here too still. But this effort should not be lost if the topic is in fact notable. Some editors only want to contribute stats. They have a place in Wikipedia, within limits. This is not necessarily a sports phenomena. See 2018_California_State_Assembly_election. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Just out of curiosity, do you believe every college basketball season notable? I'm asking because I just tagged 2012–13 Hartford Hawks men's basketball team as unreferenced, seven years after the AfD. I'm fine with draftifying this, but so many really poor season articles (unreferenced or sourced only to the school record book) get kept on WP:NEXIST grounds and then never get improved. Since the AfC standard is "likely to be kept at AfD," I'm trying to figure out if I should just accept these articles at AfC even if they're terribly referenced since they're likely to get kept as-is, but that still seems problematic to me somehow? SportingFlyer T·C 02:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I generally dont edit season articles outside of UCLA. I'd be more skeptical of any program not in the Power Five, but I dont follow those programs enough to have a definitive opinion yet. I suggest bringing it up at WP:CBBALL to see what others think.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that pretty much all NCAA men's division I seasons are going to be notable given the significant coverage that comes at that level - coverage is constant and there is national interest in teams from all over. The coverage NCAA division I football and men's basketball gets is very similar to what top professional leagues get. I live in a town with two mid-major programs (one traditionally strong one, one sort of mediocre) and from about two months out from the start of the season to a month or so after there is daily coverage not only locally, but across a number of states - not just game summaries, but feature articles about the team, coaches, fans, etc. That is a separate question as to whether or not hastily-written articles that aren't more than results tables should be written. The first goes to notability, the second goes to acceptable standards. I can add a few sources to this article this weekend when I have time - I looked and they are plentiful (as I said, this is not a close notability case), but I just won't commit to go deep into writing season articles - it is not an area of interest for me - I much prefer to create/work on articles about people. I do think the article being promoted from AfC as is likely shouldn't have happened, and may be something to discuss with the editor who promoted it. Like I said, give me the weekend and I can at least get the sourcing/prose to a minimally acceptable level. Rikster2 (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rule at AfC is "likely to be kept at AfD." I'm happy to functionally withdraw my nomination if we can source this properly, but if all NCAA men's seasons are presumptively notable (not discussed by WP:NSEASONS, to be fair) would that mean these sorts of articles should just be brought over regardless of the state of their sourcing, since they'd be kept under WP:NEXIST? I hope it's clear I'm trying to address something I see as a problem and I hope this isn't coming off as WP:POINTY. SportingFlyer T·C 14:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think new articles shouldn't be promoted if they don't meet standards for season articles (ie, no prose, no reliable sources) and this should be communicated to anyone with AfC reviewer or new page reviewer access. That seems like a safeguard that could be added to that process relatively easily. For the ones that exist, I guess take it to the college basketball wikiproject. I will tell you, a LOT of people view these articles so just deleting them out of hand seems like a bad move. The new ones are created by a handful of users, so seems like they could be educated as to what standards for these articles need to be. Rikster2 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good course of action to me. I will note the Hartford men's basketball pages, the ones unreferenced for six-seven years, only receive a handful of views a month. I'm not sure those seasons are actually notable. I think a team in a more prominent league would be presumptively notable. I think part of the problem is it's difficult to figure out when WP:NSEASONS is actually met via WP:GNG, for any sport, not just college basketball - for instance, when is season coverage not routine? But that's a topic for another day. SportingFlyer T·C 16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: WP:NSEASONS can be improves. It's currently more akin to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and a quasi-style guide.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 (talk · contribs) Would you mind striking your delete !vote so I can withdraw the nomination and move this back to draftspace? That seems to be the best course of action here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on sources I have identified below, I'd suggest at this point to not shuttle back and forth between namespaces. We could just "Speedy keep" it if the deletes are withdrawn. I'd aim toward tightening AfC a bit to more of "unlikely to be AfDed", which I would still be consistent with "likely to be kept at AfD". Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't move it back to draftspace, I already said I would add more prose/sources this weekend, which is a reasonable timeframe for me to offer. Rikster2 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent source. I've found "A Preview of the 20 Top College Basketball Teams". November 25, 1979, The New York Times, "The Top 20". December 1, 1980. Sports Illustrated, "High rating doesn't rate too high with Carnesecca, Valvano". December 2, 1979. New York Daily News during the season. After the season, there's "ND eyes 8th straight NCAA tourney". November 12, 1980. The Kokomo Tribune and "IRISH VS. DE PAUL: IT'S STRICTLY PERSONAL". February 21, 1993. Chicago Tribune. There's plenty more.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG, per Bagumba's sources. Like Rikster said, this was a top-10 team through most of the season for one of the most notable athletic universities in the country. The idea that this ever wasn't notable is ridiculous. Could the article be improved? Sure it could. But, that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue (i.e. Deletion is not cleanup). Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT trumps WP:GNG. This has never been about notability. SportingFlyer T·C 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it stated that NOT trumps GNG? Wikipedia is not a list of stats, but that doesn't address an article that can be improved beyond a list of stats IMO. To me, this case is no different than the plethora of one-line Olympian stubs with no independent sources that get AfDed and then improved to meet guidelines (like the recent Diana Soto). The subject does not fail WP:NOT, the article as it is presently constructed does. Rikster2 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG, and there's no evidence WP:NOT trumps that. Also, AFD is not cleanup. The present state of the article is irrelevant and by nom's own admission the subject is notable and does not violate WP:NOT. If it weren't for the additional delete !vote I'd suggest speedying this. Smartyllama (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's directly in WP:GNG itself, under the presumption section. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the part in GNG is talking about article subjects. This subject does not fail NOT. This is the distinction I have been making. The subject “1979-80 Notre Dame men’s basketball team” is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the current poorly-written article is, and that can be corrected. Rikster2 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Prose and sources have been added to the article. Rikster2 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2018/01/qualification-of-solutions_security_visa_anssi.pdf

[2] ttps://www.ssi.gouv.fr/en/certification/common-criteria-certification/international-agreements/

[3] "Living a fantasy, Man finds job in gaming industry after years as a fan".

[4] ttps://support.tryshift.com/kb/section/45/

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]