Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 12: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:37, 12 December 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 December	13 December >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starfest

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

Written like an ad, lacks reliable sourcing Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lame rationale, but the topic fails GNG. I have added a more specific source search below, as there is a Starfest in Dallas TX which may be notable, but isn't about Trekkies. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Madia

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

This article appears to be a promotional vanity article. Subject fails WP:NPOL as a failed candidate and beyond politics, fails WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet GNG. Reads like a press release. His military service does not rise to a level of notability; he ran for public office and lost. Just nothing notable enough. Trivial and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; very much a press release.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a losing candidate for Congress with no other notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last discussion was based on a flawed understanding of the guidelines of notability for politicians. Candidates for political office are not counted as "local politicians". Instead they need to pass very high muster of non-routine coverage. That is just not reached in Madia's case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in elections, but this doesn't make any proper claim that he's notable for anything else — the few sources here that exist outside the context of his election campaign itself comprise two namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things and one piece in which he's the bylined author rather than the subject. This is not how you demonstrate or source a person as notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut Like A Diamond

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

Does not appear to be a notable album; most of the artists listed have no Wikipedia articles, and neither is the album's composer. No coverage in reliable sources could be found, and there is no indication that the album charted on any major Indian chart. Online hits appear to be mostly false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Any article on a recording by an unnotable musical artist without an article themselves can be speedily deleted. Or does the one member with an article create an exception?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firaydoun Javaheri

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

Fails WP:BIO. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many similar articles have already been deleted of members of the UHJ. Membership does not establish notability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed. Smkolins (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The top leaders of a major world faith, as the members of the UJH are, clearly are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The members makes collective decisions by majority vote on a council, and they don't serve as clergy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is defined as the number of third-party reliable sources. Just being a leader without any particular third party sources doesn't make one notable, and that's the case here. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically it's a split, but the core argument for deletion is compelling and uncontested: the content is entirely based on self-published websites, which are basically the textbook definition of what WP:RS are not. Because WP:V as a core policy cannot be superseded by consensus, the opinions to keep must be discounted. While I appreciate arguments such as RoySmith's that we should nonetheless keep this useful or interesting content per WP:IAR, I do not think that these arguments hold up under scrutiny. IAR asks us to ignore rules that prevent us from improving Wikipedia, but in the light of the core policy of verifiability, it is the removal rather than the addition of unverifiable material that improves Wikipedia. Sandstein 17:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog numbering systems for single records

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)

The purpose and scope of this article seem very unclear. It purports to "present the numbering systems used by various record companies for single records", but there are/have been dozens (hundreds?) of record labels that have released singles and it seems unclear what purpose an article trying to describe every label's catalog numbering system, just for one type of release (vinyl singles), serves in an encyclopedia. Notes on a particular record label's catalog numbering system would, I think, best go in the article about that record label. There doesn't seem to be much use in trying to compile all record labels' catalog systems into a single list. Nearly every reference in this article is to a single website, http://www.78discography.com/, which appears to be a personal website. Other refs point to http://www.45cat.com/ which I think is a wiki. The article was created and mainly built up by User:BRG who, according to their user page, stepped away from WP because they felt the concepts of "reliable sources" and "notability" were detrimental, and didn't see why personal web pages weren't reliable as sources. I think that probably explains why this article exists. IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources, no real clear indication of importance. The article documents numbering systems for record labels, but...so what? What's the significance of that? Why would such a thing need documentation on an encyclopedia? The article doesn't cover it, and I can't think of anything personally. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it's an excellent resource and yes, this is a topic worth entering an encyclopedia for its historical significance (music studies rely on this kind of evidence pretty often; it is also the case with recordings of spoken word). Better references are definitely needed, but this shouldn't be deleted. – Impy4ever (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument lacks any sort hard proof or examples. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSNOTABLE are not valid keep rationales, especially coupled with the fact that both sources used in the article are not reliable/usable sources, and you haven't presented any alternative reliable sources to be used.
I can maybe understand someone arguing that it'd be worth a sentence or two at an individual record label's article about the fact that the numbering systems existed, but there is no actual purpose of actually listing out all these numbering systems in one location like this. These numbers have no significance to the general reader. We don't list them at their respective Wikipedia articles. You wouldn't use them to locate music - you don't type them in at iTunes or expect to see signs on retail shelves at Best Buy. There's literally no value in knowing these numbers. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems an excellent resource and the fact that the nominator cannot see a reason why it should exist is annulled by the fact that I have just come across it linked in a DYK hook here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's a good resource" isn't a compelling argument. The DYK "hook" is a red herring: the article is merely linked to provide some definition of "catalog number" (which the article doesn't even do...it presents no description or definition of what catalog numbers are or what purpose they serve), it's not the subject of the DYK. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DYK hooks have no bearing on article notability, or whether not articles are kept or deleted. And even if they did, that DYK hook's existence does not hinge on this article existence. Completely irrelevant !vote rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no proper deletion reason given that couldn't be addressed by improving the article rather than deleting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that's true. As explained above, the scope of the article is fundamentally flawed in ways that don't seem fixable. Why an article compiling descriptions of various record labels' catalog systems, rather than describing each label's catalog system separately within the individual articles about those labels? The systems have nothing to do with one another. It's not like all these record labels got together and planned some type of complementary numbering system, so presenting them all in one article seems to serve no purpose. And why just singles? No indication is given that the numbering systems for singles are distinct from the numbering systems used for other types of records (LPs, EPs), so the scope of the article seems arbitrary. There have been so many record labels that have released singles that such an article can hardly hope to ever approach being comprehensive, so the goal of the article is unclear. Plus, as pointed out, the article relies almost entirely on a single personal website as its source. That can't be fixed. There could/should probably be an article describing what record catalog systems are, how they developed, and how they are used by the major companies in the major markets (along the lines of the articles on International Standard Book Numbers and library catalogs), but such an article would need to be built from scratch; neither the title, text, nor sources from this article would be useful in developing it. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure you don't, but the concept is well-established and most of your nomination relates to a lack of quality or reliable sources. Just arbitrarily deleting the article because it's not perfect yet seems a little premature. I note you're badgering "keep" voters so I'm now unwatching, my point remains unchanged. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - But "lack of reliable sources" is a perfectly valid argument for deletion. Valid and still not discredited. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excellent, well-sourced, encyclopedic treatment. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out in the nomination, nearly the entire article relies a single personal website as its source. Would you mind explaining how you interpret that as being "well-sourced"? --IllaZilla (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe you gave this a thorough look. Every single source listed traces back to 2 websites. One is "45cat", which is literally listed as unreliable at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. The other is "78discography", which not literally listed at the music source site, is obviously a self-published database by a random person, and is nothing other than a giant database entry. Which is great, because that's the type of place that should be hosting this sort of information, not Wikipedia. It doesn't establish notability here in the slightest. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This needs work, yes, but AfD is not for cleanup. This is an encyclopedic subject, and while it may need to be moved to List of catalog numbering systems for single records to better reflect its content, this is a notable topic. The main thrust of the delete arguments seems to be "These numbers have no significance to the general reader." - that is not a reason to delete anything, or else we'd have to axe about two-thirds of the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for hyperbole, and please don't misrepresent the nomination. Nowhere in the nomination does it say anything about whether catalog numbers have significance to anyone. I'm an album collector myself. I'm working on a record label discography article right now...I certainly find the catalog numbers to be useful toward those interests. Rather, I questioned the usefulness of lumping a seemingly arbitrary handful of record labels' catalog systems together in a single article, rather than discussing each label's system separately in the individual articles about each label (since the various labels' systems have nothing to do with one another). As clearly stated in the nomination, the reasons for deletion are 1) lack of clear scope, 2) seemingly arbitrary inclusion criteria, 3) reliance upon a single, unreliable source for nearly all of the content. How could those issues be fixed by cleanup? --IllaZilla (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A key part of my argument was that there weren't enough (any?) reliable sources for the subject. Pretty certain that's a valid reason for deletion (that still hasn't been countered.) I think it's rather clear that's what the nomination was driving at too, even if it didn't say it word for word. (What do you think he's getting at when he says that the only 2 sources present are unreliable and that the article creator didn't understand the notion of an RS to begin with? Do we really need to plaster every nomination with GNG NOT MET at the end?) Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wow, the direction of this AFD is baffling to me. I've never seen so many experienced editors advocate keeping an article without any reliable sources present and without proposing any new usable ones. (at least not since the pre-2010 AFD days.) Yes, AFD is not cleanup, but that doesn't change that nothing beyond anecdotal "WP:ITSNOTABLE" arguments have been given so far in favor of keeping. No one has established how this meets the WP:GNG. "There's potential to improve this" type arguments are only valid when an actual potential path forward is presented - like providing actual reliable sources that could be used. No one has done that, and improvement hasn't happened organically since its inception in 2005. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm equally baffled. I've been a Wikipedian for over 11 years (less active these days, after a significant wikibreak), worked on hundreds of articles, been involved in numerous behind-the-scenes discussions, am very familiar with policies and best practices, and I'm personally a big record collector geek...and I look at this article and think "what the heck is this doing on Wikipedia?" I feel like I'm in Bizarro World reading all these keep !votes. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Keep ~~per User:Sergecross73~~. Keep because it's an incredibly valuable resource. IAR because S'73 is right that the sourcing is sub-standard. Normally, I'm a stickler for sourcing, but normally, somebody's trying to push some private agenda (promotion of a company, political, etc) or there's a question of backing up a WP:BLP. Nothing like that applies here. I'd be OK if some other suitable home (i.e. another wiki, with compatible licensing, and sufficient stability/reliability) could be found and we moved it there. But, lacking that, I'm fine with proudly flying the This is what encyclopedias are all about, damn the rules banner. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it another way, we have rules to help us keep the crap out. We should not be a slave to the contrapositive of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are you !voting "keep per Serge", when I'm one of the most ardent supporters of deleting? What is going on in this AFD? Is this some sort of practical joke on me or something? This whole AFD makes zero sense. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of an IAR per Serge. I know you're arguing to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But how is it "IAR per Serge"? I'm not advocating we IAR. I'm saying it's a clear cut time to follow the rules. It fails the GNG. There's are no RS's for this topic. Not a single person has provided any sources. Every keep argument has been based around vague, anecdotal claims of WP:ITSNOTABLE. You're going to "per Setge" based on that? Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the fundamental point of WP:IAR. You are correct that according to our rules, the sourcing sucks, and it probably doesn't meet WP:GNG, and a few other problems. What I'm saying is despite all that, I think the encyclopedia is better for having this article. My per User:Sergecross73 seems to upset you, so I've struck that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that much, at least. When you say "per someone", it's saying there's some sort of agreement on stances, which is fundamentally not the case here. I don't agree with cop-out rationales like that. If we resort to that sort of reasoning, a couple editors could and together to keep just about anything from being deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are remined to argue/!vote in light of WP:AADD and make policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, I think this probably is an encyclopaedic subject (certainly more so than some of the minutiae we have on popular culture sections). Despite what I've seen above, I think this may actually meet GNG too. But yes, it needs lots of work. – SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But how? Not a single person has proven this. Or even rationally argued it. They just go WP:ITSNOTABLE. Yes, record labels are obviously notable, but why in the world would their numbering systems be both notable, and be encyclopedic to list out like this, especially with zero reliable sources documenting this so far. Similarly, cereal is a notable subject, but "production numbers of cereal". Most mass produced commercial products have internal numbers like this. We don't have articles for anything else like that. And for good reason, there's not even a hint of independent notability in the numbering systems. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, Can I give you some well-meant advice? Whether you take it or not is up to you, but it is given in entirely good faith from someone who has (to the best of my knowledge) never interacted with you? The advice is that you should probably stop questioning every single person who has !voted to keep the article. I'm sure you don't mean to give the impression, but it does look like BLUDGEONing when you're so actively questioning every keep !voter. It may be best to just step away and let it runs its course. If the keep decision goes against you, does it really matter that much? - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's terrible advice. I'd understand your point if this was all about subjective differences in the interpretive aspects of policy (source reliability, significant coverage, how many sources does it take to meet the WP:GNG, etc) but there hasn't been a single policy-based keep vote so far. Even you've chosen to change the subject rather than say anything of substance. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not terrible, it's just advice that you don't want to accept. I see I'm not the first person to have suggested this to you: The Rambling Man has already observed it. Never mind, if it continues and someone take a little heavier action than just giving advice, you can't say you were unaware that you were doing it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please recheck the discussion. Rambling Man was speaking to Illazilla, not me. If you've got further grievances, take it to my talk page. If you're not going to explain your invalid !vote, you're just disrupting discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on trying to dismiss the opinions of others just because you don't like them. BLUDGEONing all you disagree with and accusing people of being disruptive will only ever backfire on you, particularly when a polite request has been so rudely snubbed without any sense that you are in any way in the wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not. There's nothing wrong with asking for clarification when people don't make policy-based rationales. You've refused to make a policy based argument, and have now falsely accused me of being warned of bludgeoning of others. I don't think it's crazy to say this isn't helping advance this discussion of this articles notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but split content into separate articles for each label. Because there are many different record labels all with their own arbitrarily chosen sets of catalogue numbers for various releases, they shouldn't all be stuck into the same article due to having basically nothing to do with each other. If they are worthy of inclusion they should be included in articles for each label (rather than for each format) or in the articles about the labels. However, there is a case for keeping a Lists of catalogue numbers for music releases or something like that (if the content is indeed worthy of inclusion), without any in-depth information. Jc86035 (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly is that case though? No one has established an actual case. There are no sources discussing this as an independently notable subject. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Not sure, really. There are some sources and lists of sources that I found in this cursory search, with probably the most useful probably being this Yale University Library page which lists a number of books which have compiled catalogue numbers for old records. Jc86035 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that those are really only databases that confirm their existence though. I don't doubt they exist really, it's just that, this isn't even something we bother to track on any song, album, band, or record label article. I don't understand rationalizing then how we'd track them all in one place like this. (or per record label even, when most record label articles are relatively short themselves. I don't think we need to track this anywhere, but if we did, it'd make more sense as a subsection at the respective label article.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is exactly the kind of list that interests me as an anally retentive person. But as an encyclopedic article, Sergecross73 and IllaZilla have pinpointed the problem – *how* exactly is this ever going to be improved and reliably sourced? Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a loosely connected directory of information, some of it is unsourced. The referenced content should be moved to the respective articles so it is not lost. It's likely that anyone interested in catalogue numbering will be able to find the content in those articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has no third party sourcing (99% of it is sourced from a single site, 78discography.com) and is just a bloated mess of trivia. None of this info would exist on the main articles, so why does a separate, exclusive one for this exist? It being a "valuable resource" should not be used as a defense when it fails other Wikipedia guidelines, which I believe is the case here. See WP:NOTCATALOGUE. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTCATALOG. Lots of !keep votes here saying WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT yet no one has provided sources to show how it meets WP:GNG. What am I missing here? TarkusAB^talk 20:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the very good arguments put forward by Rambling Man. Cassianto^Talk 12:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all well and good saying how "useful" this article is and how nice it is to have it here, but this is an encyclopaedia, and the sources used in the article are just appalling. Ditto TarkusAB's comments from above. I also agree with IllaZilla that it's far from clear what the article's trying to cover. JG66 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm totally baffled at finding even one "keep" vote at this AfD, never mind the deluge of votes built entirely on such blatant non-arguments as "This seems an excellent resource". I haven't been around the music WikiProjects for a few months, but last I checked, there's a consensus that we don't list catalog numbers at articles for songs and albums. Which makes sense, because those numbers are completely meaningless outside of the record collecting hobby, and Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. So what sense is there in explaining the catalog numbering systems, much less having an article which arbitrarily groups together a bunch of numbering systems for every single label? In short: The article is poorly conceived, and covers material which is clearly outside Wikipedia's scope.--Martin IIIa (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiesław Żyznowski

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

Nonnotable person Staszek Lem (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it looks too much like a CV on LinkedIn. Fails GNG. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbered roads in Toronto

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

Empty and before last edit page was useless and a very small. The stuff on the page was replaced by list of north-south roads in Toronto as the two roads on the page fall under that catargiry BrandonALF (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2017 (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/2017 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; not a valid rationale. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Kisicki

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

Non-notable actor with a brief filmography consisting mainly of nameless bit parts. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently, I see one WP:RS from People that is a bit dated. The Obit seems to be sourced from Wikipedia and stories like this aren't so much about Kisicki. I am having trouble supporting WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local level stage actor lacking notability, film credits are way below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no clear preference among possible alternatives to deletion. Sandstein 17:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Choice for a Lost Generation?!

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

This is a group of WP:permastubs about albums of the Dutch punk rock band Heideroosjes that are all completely unsourced and contain only basic track listing information (and, in some cases, comments about other releases of the same songs or comments about who played which instruments). There is no commentary by music critics or any other indication of notability. This nomination for deletion also includes the following additional articles:

Footnote: This would empty the category Category:Heideroosjes albums

These were previously nominated for deletion and discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation. While most people who commented supported deletion, they were kept on the procedural principle that instead of having a longer list of articles for deletion, the nomination should be broken up into smaller ones. This is the third of those smaller groups. (Strictly speaking, Sinema (album) is not completely unsourced, as it cites a track listing.) —BarrelProof (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 14:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge all with Heideroosjes. The band itself is barely notable, so there's no way each album deserves its own article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge all to List of Heideroosjes albums or something similar. The band has quit too recent to make these albums fade from memory. Most of them have been in hitlists, at least here in NL, so notable. PPP (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Go

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, unsourced. HindWiki^Connect 01:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HindWiki^Connect 01:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is hardly any content and gist and moreover, there are no references at all. Not worthy of an article. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Non-notable song by a non-notable pre-teen garage band. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-this user has been creating many unnotable articles about artists. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantina Laredo

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "has 35 branches throughout the USA, plus two abroad; probably notable". I don't think size matters - it is not a criteria on any notability guideline. The article doesn't cite a single source and is a pure WP:YELLOWPAGES entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large enough chain to be notable in its market. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you copypaste this vote from somewhere else? This article doesn't make any claim about size outside claiming it is a chain. A chain can be two outlets, you know. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I actually bothered to look it up (and found it has 37 branches, as you even stated when you quoted me in your nomination above!). Did you do the same? Please try to WP:AGF! Your comments about copypasting seem anything but. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you found a source that's better then company's homepage, please do share it. Adding to the article would be nice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - That was from the company's homepage, which clearly lists the restaurants (so hardly only two!). Or do you maybe think it's all an elaborate hoax? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete total and complete failure of any even minimal standards of notability. There is not even an inkling of any source except the restaurant website. Wikipedia is not a free for all business ad platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 30 November 20[17 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources on google books I've found so far: [1][2][3][4][5]. Not sure why Johnpacklambert seems to think that there is no other sources (google books and news search at least? c'mon). Don't see much about a chain though - apart from the last source, it is just individual reviews of restaurants, so not sure about notability. Need national/atleast region attention for WP:NORG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Well individual restaurant reviews are routine according to WP:CORPDEPTH; so only one source of the first 5 is useful;I have been able to find two more sources, but of all, only the the first has a full meaty paragraph on it. Not enough for WP:NCORP; I do think more sources could be found. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC) It's actually an international chain - with 100 branches in the U.S., UK, and other countries; I was able to find a restaurant review in the independant, which again only has a few words on the chain itself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Goldstein, Robin (2009). Fearless Critic Austin Restaurant Guide: The Brutally Honest Guide to Eating in and Around Austin, Texas (2 ed.). New York: Fearless Critic. p. 143. ISBN 0981830560. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The book notes:
  
  Cantina Laredo is one of the more ambitious restaurants to participate in the large-scale, city-subsidized development of the area dubbed the "Second Street District." Although this one is actually on Third Street, it looks and feels more connected to the yup-and-coming new row of botiques and eateries on Second.
  We must first disclose that Cantina Laredo is unfortunately a subsidiary of Consolidated Restaurant Operations (the name alone makes us shudder), of Spaghetti Warehouse and El Chico fame. Designers have done an okay job of avoiding that chain-restaurant feel; although furnishings are trendified, they still manage to feel soothing and intimate. We are booth fans, and particularly like the cozy two-person booths here. Lighting is dim, and there's a certain pleasant bustle to the place. But Laredo really has been suffering from the Consolidated Restaurant Ooperations feel lately, with seemingly high staff turnover, an increasingly impersonal experience, and sketchy execution.
2. Froeb, Ian (2015-05-01). "Cantina Laredo gussies up Mexican cuisine; Casa Del Mar embarrasses it". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  The upscale, Dallas-based chain Cantina Laredo boasts locations as diverse as Abu Dhabi, Branson, Chicago and, since October of last year, Clayton. Whether it resembles anything that you might find in Mexico itself is debatable. The menu nods at traditional Mexican fare, but it also includes more than a few concessions to the fajitas-and-margaritas crowd.
3. Harrigan, Denise Owen (2012-10-25). "Dining Out: Cantina Laredo keeps it fresh". The Post-Standard. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Cantina Laredo, by comparison, is brand new in these parts: It’s the offspring of a national chain and potentially at odds with our locavore instincts.
  ...
  The 34-restaurant Cantina Laredo chain is at the upscale end of the even larger company, Consolidated Restaurant Operations. Each cantina is customized to its site.
  Destiny USA — the first mall to recruit a Cantina Laredo — inspired a linear, minimalist decor with polished wood, rustic stone and contemporary black leather.
4. Buhman, Charles (2005-08-11). "Cantina Laredo Already A Texas-Sized Hit". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  A Texas-based chain's first foray into South Florida, Plantation's Cantina Laredo moved in last month with all sorts of corporate-concept banter promising authentic, gourmet Mexican cuisine in a sophisticated atmosphere.
  ...
  We weren't exactly wowed by Cantina Laredo's chicken dishes - the camarónes escondidos seemed way too salty, and the fajitas had an overwhelmingly smoky taste.
  The beef fajitas, on the other hand, were marvelous, and the achiote roasted pork quesadillas, pure comfort food.
5. Tilton, Meg (2008-07-24). "Review: Cantina Laredo". Daily Camera. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Cantina Laredo prides itself on gourmet Mexican fare, and the restaurant's food is indeed a step up from that you find at many Mexican eateries. So are the price tags. My favorite entrée at Cantina Laredo, the camarones escondidos -- or hidden shrimp -- cost $18.99. The cheaper things I tried tended to come in somewhat small portions. My overall impression of the restaurant was that the food was tasty but often overpriced by a few dollars per dish. Still, Cantina Laredo is a welcome addition to Twenty Ninth Street. The fare is interesting and the ambience inviting.
  ...
  One way Cantina Laredo distinguishes itself from many Mexican restaurants is with its sauces. Don't expect just the standard choices here, like red or green chile. The hidden shrimp, for instance, are topped with a delicious chipotle-wine sauce. The peppery flavor builds in your mouth as you chew, while a smoky undercurrent complements the sweetness of the shrimp.
6. Owens, Shelley (2005-11-05). "Mexican cuisine shakes off fast-food image". The Stuart News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  The location will depend finding a site and a financial partner, something Lemmer has done in Melbourne and with the white-tablecloth Mexican concept, Cantina Laredo, which he has opened in Plantation and Fort Myers.
  El Chico Cafe and Cantina Laredo are both concepts of Consolidated Restaurant Operations Inc. in Dallas.
  ...
  At $18 to $22 per check, Cantina Laredo patrons repast on grilled fish, chicken and steaks like those served in gourmet restaurants in Mexico City.
  The company has been in Florida since 1984 and done well, said Harkey. "Len Lemmer's Fort Myers store "has proven to be the number one Cantina Laredo in our entire system."
  The first restaurant in this area will open in spring 2006 in Palm Beach Gardens on PGA Boulevard just west of Military Trail. That store is scheduled to open in spring 2006.
7. Lunsford, Ja'Rena (2005-10-07). "Cantina Laredo to bring gourmet Mexican' fare to Penn Square". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Cantina Laredo, a "gourmet Mexican restaurant, is opening in Penn Square Mall, replacing the space Garcia's once occupied. The new restaurant will be the first Cantina Laredo in the state.
  ...
  It's not an El Chico, but Cantina Laredo is one of the brands under Consolidated Restaurant Operations Inc., the company that operates El Chico, Spaghetti Warehouse and various other concepts. CRO did not return calls.
  ...
  Cantina Laredo has 11 locations in Texas, Arizona and Florida. Menu items include signatures such as fajitas, tacos and enchiladas as well as specials including shrimp and 16 ounce ribeyes.
8. Axley, Michele (2001-08-17). "More than a watering hole - Dishes live up to enticing ambience at Cantina Laredo". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  GOOD-LOOKING: You'd be hard-pressed to find a more attractive Mexican restaurant than Cantina Laredo - both in drive-up appeal and décor. Its hacienda-style stucco exterior sets it apart from other tenants at the northeast corner of Preston and Royal.
  Dim, strategic lighting and upscale Southwestern appointments make the dining room a soothing spot in which to linger when there's not a crowd. When jammed, Cantina Laredo displays the jumpin' side of a dual personality. As the 3-year-old restaurant's name suggests, the huge bar (20-plus bar stools) is at the heart of the space, with a regular crowd bellying up for food and drink.
  ...
  A SECOND LOOK: Before checking out the restaurant for review, we had dined there on occasion, and though its attractiveness and handsome bar had us hooked for a while,we found the food to be inconsistent. On a recent return visit, we were delighted to find a significant improvement.
9. Patrick, Mary (2009-02-20). "Cantina Freshens Up - Tex-Mex Traditions". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Cantina Laredo is a chain restaurant, but it's not just another version of the Tex-Mex chains that popped up everywhere in the 1990s. The dishes are of a much higher quality, as are the ingredients. Although, beware; the prices are higher as well.
  ...
  Cantina Laredo provides Mexican fare a cut above the ordinary - and quite a few cuts above with some dishes. If you go, make sure to order the guacamole. But also be prepared to pay a bit more than you are used to at other Mexican chains.
10. Burks, Erica (2008-02-15). "Fill up on Mexican fare at Cantina Laredo". The Florida Times-Union. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  If you are expecting real gut-busting, jalapeno-laden Mexican food at Cantina Laredo, you are in the wrong place. Even the name should clue you in: Cantina Laredo. Can it get any more corporate than that?
  But if you are in the market for some relatively good Tex-Mex food in an elaborately styled "cantina," this is your spot. It is located in that little gold mining village the locals like to call "the Town Center," where even on a Wednesday night, the wait is 30 minutes long. We smartly made reservations and enjoyed some seriously good tequila while our table was being prepared.
  ...
  While the decor is refreshing, we found the food to be hit-and-miss. ...
  All in all, I may not call Cantina Laredo true "gourmet" Mexican food, but it definitely is an improvement on some of the more generic "ground beef and taco shell" places around town. We'll go back, and we will definitely make reservations when we do.
11. Stovall, Waltrina (1991-03-08). "Cantina Laredo". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  The Cantina Laredo in the Corner Shopping Center can't be judged so easily. The salsa is warmed, a nice touch, and it has large tomato pieces, also a plus. But it holds so little else -- scant onion and jalapeno burn -- that ultimately it is boring. Ditto for the pico de gallo, mostly onion and mushy tomatoes. But look past the batch-produced items and Catina Laredo, which is owned by El Chico, offers some out-of-the-ordinary fare.
  ...
  The original Cantina Laredo opened in Addison in 1984; this one last summer, and more are reportedly in the works. But don't judge them by their chain aspirations -- or their salsas. They offer good, reasonably priced Tex-Mex.
12. Steinberg, Steve (1998-07-24). "The streaks of Laredo - Inconsistencies make dining at new cantina a borderline experience". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Cantina Laredo, Gene Street's stylish new place at Preston Royal, sure looks good. Dallas' Mr. Restaurant has broken away from the border cliche of earlier Cantinas and their sibling El Chico cafes. Employee-designed, it's muy nuevo Laredo, all cool and contemporary, with rough-plastered sand-colored walls, low ceilings, track and recessed lighting - sort of postmodern Southwestern with a splash of mission style. No kitschy, Disney-esque touches here.
  ...
  But if you look this pretty, you ought to cook this pretty. And we hit some ugly spots on our first visit.
  Most of our entrees were served tepid. At the other extreme, a dessert brownie was burned. Chicken came in various guises, but all of them were dry and unappealing.
  The kitchen couldn't plead a rush-hour crunch; the restaurant was less than a quarter full when we dined on a Sunday afternoon.
  ...
  Service on both visits was prompt, polite and eager. Cantina Laredo's task is to see that the food's consistency comes up to the same level. Until then, we're thinking "Never on Sunday."
13. Chronister, Bill (2009-08-04). "Cantina Laredo set to sizzle". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  The restaurant is the first Ohio iteration of the 30-unit chain.
  ...
  Cantina Laredo aims for sophistication in its menu and decor, the latter through blond wood and black leather, with a sweeping bar, a series of dining rooms, an all-weather patio and a small, three-season space.
  That bar is covered with Texas limestone, and behind it, along with regular offerings, are 50 brands of tequila, available by the drink or in flights for tastings.
14. Rice, Dale (2006-07-27). "After Appetizer, Things Go South at Cantina Laredo". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Cantina Laredo, an upscale Mexican chain with nearly a dozen locations in Texas, opened its first Austin site three months ago in the new Second Street shopping and entertainment district on the ground floor of the AMLI building. The place has two things going for it: a location in a vibrant area and a sleek, stylish dining room that has the feel of a hip, urban environment.
  That's good, because the one thing it doesn't have is food worth going there for.
  ...
  Cantina Laredo has a lot of work to do. On average, the food there is merely acceptable, which merits neither a star nor a recommendation to drive across town to eat there.
15. Passy, Charles (2007-09-14). "The Treats of Laredo". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Cantina Laredo is a Mexican restaurant that defies easy categorization. It's not your neighborhood Tex-Mex joint, where you head for a cheese-laden combo platter, endless bowls of chips and maybe a frozen margarita (or two or three). Nor does it quite qualify as a citadel of sophisticated Mexican cooking a la Rosa Mexicano.
  Instead, Cantina Laredo aspires to be a mix of the two, appealing to a slightly upscale crowd but not one that wants to be too daring with its choice of cuisine. The result? An altogether different approach to south-of-the-border-style dining. Call it Suburban Mex.
  ...
  Cantina is part of a growing nationwide chain, with more than 20 restaurants throughout the country. So its Suburban Mex formula may not be so new, after all. But the appeal is still there, provided you go in with the right expectations.
16. Floyd, Nell Luter (2017-08-29). "Cantina Laredo wows from food to atmosphere". The Clarion-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  The restaurant is owned by local investors and Consolidated Restaurant Operations is a partner as well, in addition to being the operator, he said. “It’s a 50-50 partnership,” he said.
  Cantina Laredo first opened in 1984 in Addison, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. There are 35 locations in the United States, with additional locations in Abu Dhabi and London.
17. Kramer, Julia (2011-11-07). "Cantina Laredo and III Forks. Restaurant reviews". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  True to its Orwellian-sounding name, Consolidated Restaurant Operations Inc. is a Texas-based corporation that operates more than 100 restaurants in the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. Of those, more than 30 are Cantina Laredos and seven are III Forks steakhouses, each of which recently opened a Chicago location. The two-story behemoth that is Cantina Laredo takes up a good chunk of a city block near the finally-not-under-construction Grand Red Line stop, while a few blocks to the east...
18. Macleod, Tracey (2010-07-23). "Cantina Laredo, St Martin's Courtyard, 10 Upper St Martin's Lane, London WC2". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Spoiler alert. This review contains details of the single worst dish the reviewer has yet encountered in her professional career. If you don't want to know the ending, or are reading this in the hope of finding a great new Mexican restaurant, look away now.
  I didn't want to hate Cantina Laredo. Good Mexican food can be a wonderful thing, and the arrival in central London of an American institution serving "gourmet Mexican food" sounded like something to celebrate.
  ...
  So trust me, I went to Cantina Laredo in the genuine hope of some vivid, authentic Mexican food. Founded in Dallas, the brand is already well established in the States. The London branch, operating under franchise, occupies a new development on the traffic-clogged edge of Covent Garden, just up the road from Stringfellows. Border country, in other words, patrolled by hungry travellers who have journeyed many miles by bridge and by tunnel in search of sustenance.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cantina Laredo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantina Laredo received significant coverage in a Robin Goldstein book. It has received significant coverage in multiple regions: Colorado (Daily Camera), Florida (The Florida Times-Union, Miami Herald, The Palm Beach Post, The Stuart News, and The Tampa Tribune), Mississippi (The Clarion-Ledger), Missouri (St. Louis Post-Dispatch), New York (The Post-Standard), Ohio (The Columbus Dispatch), Oklahoma (The Oklahoman), and Texas (Austin American-Statesman and The Dallas Morning News).
Cantina Laredo received significant coverage in a UK newspaper, The Independent. It has received persistent coverage between 1991 and 2017. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Cunard (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is that the subject of this article satisfies the general notability guideline on the basis of sources that are available which provide significant coverage. Mz7 (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump dolls

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

Non-notable merchandising of Trump's likeness, fails WP:PRODUCT. See also recent deletion of "Trump fragrances" along the same lines. — JFG ^talk 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Comfortably passes WP:GNG. Some source examples include the following (more are available): [6],[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep plenty of refs, in article and elsewhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV dating back to 2004.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per North America passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kong Hon

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

Delete: not particularly notable supporting film actor. Quis separabit? 01:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Like Quis said, the actor is not notable. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 90 films and 100 TV series to his credits. Please refer to the other Wikipedias. Timmyshin (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator gives no reason why he considers a prolific actor who appeared in 200 films and TV dramas over a career spanning 60 years as not notable. His recent death is reported in Chinese-language media worldwide, including Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Singapore, and Canada, see Google News. -Zanhe (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Treysand who has expanded the article with many sources. -Zanhe (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Sources about his 7 December 2017 death include this article from Apple Daily, this article from Ming Pao, this article from Wen Wei Po, and this article from World Journal.
For coverage before his death, see this detailed 2008 profile from Apple Daily. There is more information about his extensive nearly 60-year career at zh:江漢.
Cunard (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks all for bringing this article about this late Hong Kong actor up to standard. Deryck C. 13:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and permit recreation. Is promotional in tone and appears to be close paraphrasing so this is clearly not to our standards but the subject is clearly notable. Therefore removing this to make room for a new compliant article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthie Collins

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

Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Reads like a promotional piece. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the only coverage I can find are reworded press releases. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree much of her coverage—especially those with CMT website—is lazy paraphrasing of press releases. But at least one performance review in a major metro daily (http://beta.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-stagecoach-ruthie-collins-backstage-20160501-story.html) isn’t too shabby. So is being name checked at least on three separate occasions by Rolling Stone. Add those with a release on an established independent label, it’s enough to qualify per wikipedia criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's good coverage of her and her work as ShelbyMarion pointed out. Here's some more: CMT 2017, CMT 2016 and Huffington Post. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does read like a promotional piece and fails WP:MUSIC but it does conform to GNG. Hence, I propose cleanup for those sentences and parts written like an advert. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Covg is pretty shy of what is usually reqd for performers. Article is all OR and somewhat PROMO in nature. Agricola44 (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gosaku Ota

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

Non-notable anime designer. Only notable lead work is Groizer X, otherwise just another robot anime supporting/episodic artist. Recommend redirect to Groizer X. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to provide some information: it seems both the article and the nominator might not be best characterizing the artist's work. He is less a designer than a manga artist with a number of works under his name. According to the Japanese Wikipedia, his most representative work is Tsuribaka taishō ja:釣りバカ大将, which ran in CoroCoro Comic to a total of ten volumes (a sequel ran for 5 volumes--both are now available at Comic Park [16]). He is thus known for his original fishing manga. Otherwise, he is known for his manga versions of famous anime (searches of his name in Japanese produce quite a number of blog articles on his manga on Mazinger Z: [17], [18], [19], [20]; or on Getter Robot: [21], [22], etc.). I am not sure this is enough to save the article, but I wanted to make sure there is no misrepresentation. Michitaro (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying he's better known as a manga artist of manga adaptations of anime series? Why isn't that in the article? The way it is stated now he appears to be a minor anime character designer. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never having heard of this guy before, I can't say why the article was written the way it was. I just checked on the Japanese Wikipedia page and then did independent searches and reported the results here. He seems to have both produced his own original manga (especially about fishing, one of which seems to have been reasonably successful) as well as did manga adaptations of successful anime.Michitaro (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the articles on Japanese and French Wikipedia have hardly any references as well (JA Wikipedia only shows 1) so it would have a hard time passing WP:GNG. The independent searches sound promising. As with others, if you'd like to move this over to Draft and work on it so that it can pass notability, then that could work. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find much in the way of RS on the net, though I am less familiar with where to look for them in the case of manga (though I know they are just not as available compared to those for other media). But I do know a couple of good printed reference books for manga artists (basically biographical dictionaries), so I can check those to see if he appears in those. Michitaro (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jam Cruise

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

Delete: thoroughly non-notable and completely commercially promotional "article". Quis separabit? 01:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant advertisement posing as an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obvious advertisement. Zhangj1079 ^talk 04:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility Capital

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. The sources are exclusively press releases and based on press releases, trivial mentions, directory listings and blogs. Rentier (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's true that the sources just trivially mention the company and doesn't provide meaty coverage. Moreover, the overview section reads more like an advertisement to me. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Douglas shooting

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

I imagine there will be claims that the sporadic updates by largely regional sources constitutes "ongoing coverage". But really, it is WP:NOTNEWS and there wasn't any WP:INDEPTH analysis. This incident simply did not receive substantial national or international attention or historical significance. Heck, there weren't even any routine repercussions from the investigation or civil suit; the shooting was deemed justified. Of course, no one has to be charged to make an incident notable but it certainly would have created some case of significance in an otherwise unnotable event. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The shooting and death are not of lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm not seeing lasting significance or societal impact here. Coverage is routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it passes GNG it still fails WP:NOTNEWS. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vickie Vértiz

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are unfortunately mostly webpages and neighborhood papers and awards seem to be obscure. Agricola44 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Derbyshire Chargers

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

Non-notable amateur rugby league team. Doesn't appear to have ever appeared in any competition at national level. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midlands Rugby League Division Two, the league/division/? that the team competed in. (Note I've created {{R from team}} to tag these sort of redirects.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - do not have to play at national level.Fleets (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the club doesn't appear notable. Mattlore (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to PLOS. It's a stretch to say there's an actual consensus to merge, but it was mentioned a couple of times and WP:ATD argues for it. This should be a limited merge, just enough to give a redirect some reasonable context. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PLOScast

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

I'm not seeing much WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT for this podcast, as it is very specific to PLOS and has not been reviewed outside of the PLOScast blog. News articles listed are primarily announcements of academic guests on the podcast. Recommend redirect to PLOS, the company that makes the podcasts, and make it a section. The specific titles for the episodes are not needed either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep So "very specific" applies to ORCID, but not (as ever) to DC and Marvel? We have the most trivial of podcasts and vlogs covered, but if they're on a serious topic, then they're 'too specific'? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that the sources provided are affiliated with the PLOS organization. Any organization can put out podcasts, so what makes this one generally notable that it needs a fully detailed episode list? I'm trying to figure out how it is more notable that Jay_Mohr#Podcast or Pat Monahan's Patcast, both of which get mentions from their guests. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent sources. Not even sure it merits a mention in PLOS.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It seems reasonable to have a paragraph or so at PLOS though. Gnome de plume (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing significant independent coverage. PLOS itself is notable, but that is not an argument PLOScast is by default either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Loo

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

Not convinced of the notability of this person. Article seems promotional and the sources are not very strong. A lot of IP contributions that may be COI. I think a discussion would be worthwhile. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with @Philafrenzy -- this is not a fansite or LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads too much like a resume. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This entrepreneur is quite well known in Malaysian and Singaporean news. However, the article reads very much like a promotion and CV. Would a cleanup be possible? Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was a major contributor to this topic. As mentioned by Ernestchuajiasheng, he is well known in Malaysia and Singapore and the article is properly referenced. He has also been in the news again lately. Perhaps put a note in Wikipedia:WikiProject Malaysia if you really want to gauge notability as they will be able to provide a better view of the subject. – SMasters (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a coat rack for information on his company, mainly because articles on companies get better scrutinized and need better sourcing, even though the biographies of living people guildelines should make it the other way around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopelesssly promotion to the exgtent it could have been G11. "Bryan Loo and his company are now focusing its resources on moving forward in its growth story with its 100-strong workforce." DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ellis

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

Only one notable character, does not meet WP:GNG. Created by blocked editor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for own article. Only one notable role with next to no filmography otherwise. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My thoughts exactly, @Beemer69:. Not notable enough to have an article as shown by the stubby depth of the article itself. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Not to be confused with Professor Ellis who is probably notable. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete guidelines require multiple notable roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Hollyoaks_characters_(2013)#Tegan_Lomax seems sensible until she does some more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. But without prejudice to undeletion for the purpose of merging into a broader list of Trump products, if any such article is created. Sandstein 10:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald J. Trump Signature Collection

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

Defunct clothing line, whose notability is not asserted independently of its association with Donald Trump, therefore fails WP:PRODUCT.

A large section of the article is dedicated to a 2011 lawsuit, which could be briefly mentioned in Legal affairs of Donald Trump, as that article is currently silent on this particular case.

The rest covers marketing of the 2004 product launch, and campaign fodder from 2015/2016. This last bit may go into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, if it's not already there. That article now says that in 2015 Macy's announced it would phase out its Trump-branded merchandise over Trump's comments about Mexicans, which seems a sufficient summary of what there is to know in relation to this brand. — JFG ^talk 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also the recent deletion of "Trump fragrances" along the same lines. — JFG ^talk 01:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It was a well-known product line (even before Trump launched his campaign). The fact that you are suggesting the the content of the article be split and added into two separate articles supports it notability. A reader should not have to go to two different articles to learn about one topic.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am only suggesting to salvage a couple of sentences, especially to avoid losing information about a business lawsuit that received some press coverage. That does not make the product line independently notable. — JFG ^talk 01:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 03:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just have an article on Donald Trump products into which we can smerge all this stuff? It's not like we tend to have individual articles for each of the enterprise-branded products of any celebrity. bd2412 T 00:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the best idea to me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trump puts his name on lots of prodcuts. There are ways to cover his business endevors besides little articles on each of his attempts to increase name recognition and profit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn product line; the controversies appear to be minor. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or all celebrity-branded products. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Due to low participation, this is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Mz7 (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muskets (band)

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

Fails to meet WP:BAND. Minimal coverage in reliable secondary sources; certainly insufficient to make a claim at WP:GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the coverage listed in the references section enough to pass the general notability guideline. Some of the sources I would not consider reliable, but others I do, particularly Frontview Magazine, Upset Magazine, and Punktastic. Granted, I wasn't familiar with any of these sources before this. Not extremely extensive, but it seems enough to me. Jujutacular (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfest}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwin Madia (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cut Like A Diamond}}