Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 January	19 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Industriepark

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

Contested PROD removed with little or no rationale beyond the source being added (a start, at least) dealing with the mysterious cutting down of trees around the area. The fact that the area exists isn't in question, but that doesn't automatically confer notability in the absence of the usual requirements. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has the nom done WP:BEFORE? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has performed a suitable amount of research, yes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of results on Google News. Are they just mentions? Don't we usually keep articles on major malls or developments? Why not this one? The shopping district has a Bauhaus (company) store and other things that have gotten quite a bit of coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and I may be seeing slightly different results on Google News (pretty sure it's location-sensitive), but an awful lot of what I'm seeing in both English and German amounts to just mentions. There's plenty of "New bus routes which will serve this location" and "[Store X] will open here", but that's all pretty run-of-the-mill. I'll admit that Fox News used a shot of the McDonald's outlet there for their coverage on the McDonald's Twitter hack (the one which resulted in the anti-Trump tweet last year), but that's just a "file photo", rather than any reason beyond that. You're right that major malls get articles, but that's usually because a major mall has the relevant level of coverage to justify an article. The presence of a notable chain doesn't automatically confer notability on the location either, that's where sources need to come into the picture. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we only keep articles on subjects that are notable. For malls that means that independent sources have given significant coverage to the mall itself, not just to companies that operate stores in the particular mall. Nothing suggests that this mall is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this place is historically notable in its previous incarnation as Germany's first industrial park rather than as a modern shopping centre. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this shopping complex has anything very special about it, I think it is just like lots of others, but there are a few decent mentions on Google, the rest being as BigHaz as explained, just run of the mill press announcements. The article itself looks very much like a copy of that which is on the . However I think that as a place, which exists, and has some reasonable independent sources, it should be kept because it is within the basic notability requirements. Regards Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the title in English should be Euro Industrial Park, you are using a German title. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- lacks notability per review of available sources. Coverage is in passing or incidental. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory of shopping centres. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't keep articles about places because they exist. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn.) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iqram Rifqi

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

Contested PROD. While this player has attracted some coverage, he's yet to make his senior debut in a fully-professional league, and such coverage as is present is relatively run of the mill stuff, as I see it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per correction from Struway2. I had misread the source discussed there, which caused the initial PROD and eventually the AfD here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - technically the nom is correct. The subject does not currently qualify under WP:NFOOTY. However, the article indicates that the subject has been promoted to the S League parent team. As soon as the subject takes the pitch against another S League team, the subject will qualify. I recommend holding this, if that is possible, until the end of the upcoming season to see whether the subject does so. Absent an injury or other unexpected issue, the subject is likely to qualify. Another option is for an editor to userfy the article until that time.--Rpclod (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's never any objection to re-creating an article once the player involved makes the necessary appearance on the park. Considering that the 2018 season of the S-League isn't meant to start until the end of March (according to its article) and runs until October, that's potentially a very long hold-over period - and, playing devil's advocate, what's to stop the argument being made after that time of "Well, he's been in the squad, just never selected, so why don't we hold that over until the end of next season?" and so on. Userfication may work, as I can see that the article's creator seems to be a keen fan of the league and would presumably be well-placed to update and re-create anyway. That said, I note that the other non-NFOOTY-compliant articles the same user created were deleted via PROD. This is a special case for what seems to be a reason entirely unrelated to the original user or the subject. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom is not in fact correct. This piece, cited as ref #3 in the article, clearly shows he has played in the S.League, which is listed as fully professional per the wording of WP:NFOOTBALL. Having read that, I checked Soccerway, which confirms ten (10) appearances in that league, so have added that information to the article. Please consider WP:BEFORE. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely correct. I misread that article as being about his appearances in the league below the S-League, rather than the S-League itself. I'll withdraw the nomination and close this one accordingly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. From the sources in the article he also seems to have garnered a reasonable amount of non-trivial coverage too. Fenix down (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:NFOOTBALL:They play 10 matches for Home United FC in 2017 S.League. Pinging GiantSnowman. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dorris Francis

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

Contested PROD. While the sources present do provide information on this woman (4 is in a language I can't read and 5 didn't want to load for me, but I'm sure they're similar), this is in the vein of "human interest" coverage as I read it, the sort of "cat-up-a-tree" stuff that can show up on a slow news day and get circulated for that reason. I don't see the sort of coverage which would normally equate to notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Extensive coverage by reliable newspapers for some time. A7 arguments do not apply when there is reliable coverage. Dorris Francis is not a OTP(One time Phenomenon) as suggested by the author the sources cover her at different times of here life, some cover her before her illness some after she was diagnosed. This is actually an aborted project of mine (Making articles on these unusual people) which I intend to get back to once a the new batch of Padma awards are given out on 26 January — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BigHaz-I didn't contest your prod, I was planning to contest your nomination tomorrow morning when I would have got some time off, but today I see that you seem to have already read my mind

— Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't contest it (and apologies if you'd got the impression that I was accusing you of having done so - not that contesting a PROD is something to be "accused of", but you get my meaning I hope...). The contestation came from another quarter entirely, and possibly for quite another reason. As a response to your point about the coverage, I see what you mean about the coverage at different points in her life, but that can still occur with the human-interest subjects - at least in news coverage in Australia there's a genre of report which runs "You know that hero truck driver who saved the kid from the burning house? Well, now his son has been caught speeding", and so on. If she winds up included in a Padma award list, that would seem to change things from what I can see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete human interist stories from the news media are not the thinks notable coverage to pass GNG is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage yes. Notable, no. She's a traffic crossing guard?198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Human interest stories become news and when they do, the subject passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a human interest piece that fails NOTNEWS. The GNG is only a guideline that is rebuttable presumption (click the WikiLink in WP:N and look at the endless talk page discussions there going back years on this subject). Whether or not this article passes the GNG is irrelevant to whether we should keep it per our guidelines. The GNG is not an absolute right for inclusion, consensus is policy and common sense must prevail. Depth of coverage does not only refer to the amount of coverage in a piece, but also the level of critical journalistic analysis. We don't have that here. This fails both points of WP:N, it is excluded by WP:NOT as routine news coverage, and it also lacks the depth of coverage we would expect under the GNG. Even if it meets the GNG, we are free to decide by consensus that it does not warrant an article because of the nature of the coverage: that has been the long established consensus at WP:N, and it must be considered here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As it stands, this does not appear to meet WP:NGEO or WP:GNG. Number 5 7 13:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas)

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

The subject fails WP:NGEO as it is neither populated nor historic nor a natural feature. There is routine government mention of the park but not enough to pass GNG, in my opinion. The article was de-PROD'd without a rationale so I'm sending this to AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The place is populated insofar as it is a place that people go and so it passes WP:NGEO. It is part of Clinton Lake (Kansas) and so there is an obvious alternative to deletion which has not been considered as required by WP:BEFORE. And, in any case, there seems to be adequate coverage in works such as Kansas Off the Beaten Path. Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I considered redirecting the article but since you de-PROD'd it for no apparent reason, I felt AfD was a better method of determining consensus rather than unilaterally moving the content. I'm sure you agree. I don't think your concept that humans could be found in the park sometimes meets GEOLAND's requirement for population. Kansas off the Beaten Path mentions Clinton Lake but not the park. It's not clear that the Wells Overlook County Park on page 21 is the same place and I don't see how that rises to pass GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hypocritical of Andrew to critize you here when he flat out refused to explain his reasoning for the dePROD until this was taken to AfD.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no one has to give any reason to remove a WP:PROD, just removal is contesting enough. Providing a reason is strongly encouraged but not required.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But multiple articles were deproded and I went to Andrew's talk page to specifically ask him why and he refused to explain.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just popped over to the editor's talk page. It looks to me like the editor did answer your questions. But even if the editor did not that would not be a reason to delete or not delete this article in AFD. Please cease this line of discussion to avoid any possibility of WP:Wikihounding or Wikipedia:WikiBullying. Editors are strongly encouraged but not required to provide a reason for removing a PROD. It's fair to ask. It's fair to ask for more clarity when a reason is given but not understood. But bringing it up at AFD potentially as a personal attack? No, we don't do that here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Parks are not geographic features, they are man-made designations. It is not a populated place. A populated place by definition is somewhere that people live. Unless you want to count some homeless guy sleeping on one of the parks benches every night, I don't how this rises to the status of populated place. There is no significant reliable source coverage for the park and therefore fails WP:GNG--Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGEO, and any other notability guideline I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Overland Park, Kansas. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if we merge, we should merge to either Lawrence, Kansas or Douglas County, Kansas. Overland Park is in Johnson County, Kansas and merging there would not make sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The best merge targets would be Clinton State Park or Clinton Lake (Kansas) as this is all one complex managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (but note that they are currently affected by the shutdown). Note that it should not be confused with the Wells Overlook Park, which is another park nearby. The difficulty that people are having with this, well-demonstrates Wikipedia's important role as a gazetteer, per the 5 pillars. All named geographical features should have an entry in Wikipedia so that functions like the Places button in the official Wikipedia app can work properly -- showing the features in your location. This place passes WP:NGEO for this reason. Andrew D. (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your argument is invalid, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nonsense. The WP:NOTDIRECTORY link indicates that we should not present our material in the style of a Yellow Pages or other commercial directory. A gazetteer is a different concept, listing geographical names as an index. That's explicitly part of our function per WP:5 and the WMF official interfaces increasingly support this so that people accessing Wikipedia from a smart phone, can get appropriate information about their locale. For example, I create pages about places in London such as Hanging Sword Alley and these include coordinates which then enable such interfaces. Such sensible features should not be disrupted by drive-by deletionism for which there is no policy-based justification. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.Nonsensical keep arguments.Winged Blades^Godric 17:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It passes WP:NGEO, which is what matters for places. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot but ever underestimate your ability to pick out the most ridiculous reasons and to twist the spirit of the guidelines to fit your views.Winged Blades^Godric 13:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I am revising my vote below. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not pass NGEO. Nothing in NGEO indicates that it is applicable to parks. A park is not a natural feature nor populated place.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable." FloridaArmy (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NGEO. Trouts or topic bans await. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the discussion here of WP:NGEO guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment The arguments around WP:NGEO are interesting. It seems to me that there could be some clarification written toward this guideline that could apply here. Presuming that the closing admin may consider that the arguments made around the WP:NGEO issue are strictly met based on present status, I would also ask for consideration that perhaps the guideline was not written to address cases such as this--guidelines are great tools but they also can be greatly lacking in clarity at times. Therefore, I will retain my position of delete (noted above) and add to that the policy ignore all rules also points toward deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages as per WP:NORDIRECTORY. Fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:NGEO doesn't give any clear guidance on parks (which are not populated places), I expect that a revision would allow for this to be kept (as Wikipedia does function as a gazetteer). There's no way it meets WP:GNG, but the primary (government) sources that exist should be enough to write an article. Clinton Lake (Kansas) is the redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Moves can be discussed or done boldly. Killiondude (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persijn

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

The references merely lump together some persons with the same last name, none of which have their own WP entry. If the knight is notable, he could have his own article, but as an article on the family Persijn, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep These is some sourcing on the family - e.g. [2] [3] [4] Up until 1282 or 1274 [5] the family controlled the lordship of Waterlands.Icewhiz (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article seems to pass the deletion policy regarding names and surnames.--Rpclod (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Persijn family per Icewhiz's sources. feminist (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to TVB Jade. The merge !votes made no case that anything is worth merging but the history will be intact if anyone feels any merging would be of value. J04n(talk page) 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TVBJ

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

Unsourced and no evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TVB Jade (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. I found passing mentions of the subject in my searches for sources. The page had been a redirect to TVB Jade between 30 March 2005 and 11 January 2018 (with several very brief periods in between where an article was restored and reverted).
I therefore recommend restoring the redirect that has been in place for over a decade. I recommend retaining the history so that it can be used for the creation of an article about TVBJ in case any future editors find significant coverage in reliable sources.
Cunard (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (along with TVB Jade) into TVB or do as Cunard suggests. (Cunard, why is your name red-linked? You have been on WP forever.)--Rpclod (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to TVBJade. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect to TVB Jade; not independently notable. There's nothing worth merging here, so a redirect would be the best outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Carnival

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

Non-notable video game with bad sourcing. I tried to find some sources (in both English and Russian) and came across this and this, but I'm not sure of their reliability (and it wouldn't be enough to indicate notability anyway). Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also found these two sources. I would say that does get close towards notoriety. I do have another worry, and that's WP:COI, due to the creator only having one edit. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: The user has only made edits relating to this game on Commons. Also, I just checked WP:VG/RS and the MMOS.com source is unreliable, so that takes one out of the picture. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte:, so most likely COI? Could just be a big fan, but irregardless. the MMOs.com article does indeed look promotional, what about the MMOCulture.com? That looks like a decent reference to me. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bet on it, to be honest. It looks very WP:SPS-y. I've only seen one author ("cinderboy"/Robert Chen) and I can't see any "about us" pages or any background information on the site, besides that it's been up since 2009 (© 2009 - 2017 MMO Culture). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any significant coverage in independent sources to support an article (though I can't read Russian, so I may have missed something). Ajpolino (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that the Russian Wikipedia has a substantial article with more references. Do they have a similar notability guideline as here? Ifnord (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifnord: The article on that Wikipedia is also up for deletion. Perhaps it's because of a language barrier, but none of the sources are mentioned on WP:VG/RS, so I wouldn't bet on them being reliable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially given the Russian AfD as noted above. Ifnord (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. None of the keep !votes provide any policy-based reasons to keep, i.e. sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Aali Shopping Complex

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

A quick search brings up very little in coverage. Even the article acknowledged it is not the biggest or best. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Mall size of 52,000m2 is well below expected size of a notable mall. Ajf773 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, since it is mall, its web pages on it are mostly review websites. Note there are also other malls from Bahrain that have pages that have similar self references. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen those, and if there were as poorly sourced as this should also be removed. ANd reviews are not enough, there has to be in depth coverage to show it is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Still one of the biggest malls in the country, its ranks about 4th or 5th in term of size and visitors count, I can't think of any valid reason of why the article should be deleted ! Alawadhi3000 (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article contains no independent references, let alone authoritative references, that would demonstrate notability. The mere fact that something exists does not make it notable.--Rpclod (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Further discussion can continue on the article's talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SM Rookies

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

Literally just a list of trainees with questionable notability who have either moved on to debut in a group or are still training. Abdotorg (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no significant coverage of members that aren't already a part of existing groups. No singles or shows that have charted well. Trainees are essentially non-notable by definition - they haven't debuted. Unless they make some notable news outside their musical trainee status, they probably shouldn't be listed here.Evaders99 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This article might be alternatively used as a reference. Maybe at this point there is already no importance for the coverage of the current trainees listed, and the members who are now part of the groups Red Velvet and NCT occasionally references to their pre-debut activities as "SM Rookies." The project once had a large significance, but after NCT's debut, the project was not much given attention. Dominichikaru (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Abdotorg (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to S.M. Entertainment. Though most of the information doesn't even belong here or the label article in the first place, but the group's or individual singer's articles. "Pre-debut" has become a pretty terrible neologism in K-pop beyond its dictionary definition and is really just a marketing ploy (Kard released several singles since 2016 and just "debuted" this past July? Suuure...). The trainee system is a peculiar scheme in South Korean and Japan that is worth noting, but anything beyond a simple list falls into an indiscriminate fan-factoid mess. ℯ xplicit 01:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting the article, merging this to S.M. Entertainment would be a great idea. However, put all the names of the current trainees there with a reference, then delete them once they made their debut.1.230.125.232 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Student Christian Movement of Canada

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

Minimal notability asserted, no sourcing found whatsoever, article is full of crap. Was kept in 2008 via a deluge of totally invalid arguments such as WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:PROBLEM, none of which actually addressed notability. The article is still very much unchanged from its 2008 status, and no more notability or sourcing has been uncovered Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Paul foord (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Paul foord (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a well-written and informative article that does have many references. Vorbee (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: "Well written and informative" is not a reason to keep. I could write a well-written and informative article about my cat, and that doesn't make her notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer can you speak to the sources cited in the article? The books appear to discuss to this subject and aspects of its long history dating to the 1920s. If we determined that it wasn't independently notable wouldn't a merge to the parent organization be the best outcome? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "the parent organization", do you mean the World Student Christian Federation?Vorbee (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A broader topic. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to World Student Christian Federation#National Student Christian Movements. I'm not seeing enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, beyond what's in the article. Just a couple of books and some hits based on thesis papers - but no indepth coverage of the organization in independent sources. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SCM was a very significant movement. As involved in liberal Christianity, I have little time for it personally, but that is my POV. This is certainly an article that we need. If it has unreliable content, it should be corrected, not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very substantially covered in reliable independent sources such as those cited in the article. The sources discuss its evolution, history and influence. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You must be seeing something different than I am. Can you show me one reliable source that covers the organization in depth? I'm not sure that a brief mention in a Catholic Register article is enough.[[6]] The current sourcing is quite poor - I just marked a dead link. I can't read the thesis papers but if the group was notable you'd expect to see more media coverage, especially having been around since 1921, according to the Register. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sources do. here for example the group is discussed in some detail on multiple pages. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the article you describe as a brief mention says:

"SCM has a large contingent of members of the United Church and the Anglican Church, but there are also many members of Catholics, Mennonites, Coptic Christians and others.

Since the Second Vatican Council published Unitatis Redintegratio (the Decree on Ecumenism) in 1964, ecumenism has grown to become common practice throughout Christian denominations.

Esther Townshend, an Anglican who works as the Toronto coordinator for SCM Canada, said ecumenical work has always felt natural to her.

“I do see it among the clergy and the chaplains who’ve supported SCM over the years,” said Townshend, 26. “They’ve worked hard to promote dialogue and find ways to work across denominational boundaries and that’s made it possible for it to seem so natural to our generation.”

SCM Canada, founded in 1921 as an affiliate of World Student Christian Federation, is a youth-led network that calls together Canadian Christian young people to take action for social justice and activism.

“The social teachings of Jesus that we focus on are things that are found in every wing of the Church for sure,” said Peter Haresnape, who self-identifies as Anglo-Catholic and national coordinator of SCM. “It’s really the idea that the teachings of Jesus should lead us to influence the world in a positive, concrete kind of way. Catholic social teaching is very much aligned with these values.”

Although this is first time SCM’s Toronto delegation is part of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, it is not their first collaboration with the Catholic community.

Faith Connections, a young adult ministry run by Fontbonne Ministries and the Sisters of St. Joseph Toronto, joined forces with SCM last year.

Faith Connections director Vanessa Nicholas-Schmidt said the partnership began with an open mic night in March called “Jesus, Justice and Me.” This Lenten season, they are working to collaborate on another event dedicated to eco-justice.

SCM and Faith Connections also worked together on organizing Alpha Canada programs throughout the Greater Toronto Area. Alpha Canada is a youth ministry program for Christians to share and discuss faith teachings in a fellowship environment."

Is that a brief mention? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is, since that source is mostly about the parent organization SCM, not the subject of this article. And the Catholic Register, while a nice clean looking web site, isn't nearly as notable as the similarly named National Catholic Register. I did acknowledge the couple of books and thesis papers in my merge vote above, but it's just not enough, especially for a group that's been around so long. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the quoted portion isn't about SCM Canada? I dont see any mention of the parent organization, just diacussion of SCM Canada, its history, and evolution. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I thought SCM was the parent, and then they shifted to talk about SCM Canada. There's also a Student Christian Movement of Great Britain On this news article we're discussing, which is the best source for notability we together could come up with, the caption doesn't even mention SCM Canada, calling it instead Christian Student Unity Canada. I looked some more and don't see enough coverage. In any case, this article doesn't meet my guidelines for notability. Perhaps a closing admin will disagree. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the best source jist one of many. The Eugene Forsey book also gives substantial coverage to the subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the whole Forsey book but from the Google excerpts I can see, the book confirms he was indeed a member. But since I can't tell how much in depth info there is about the group, I'll refer to WP:INHERITED which essentially says that just because he's member, doesn't make the group notable. What I'd like to see is more independent coverage, where the group is the focus, rather than just being mentioned in a member's biography. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I always want to barf when I see the Wiki used to do God's work.198.58.161.137 (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no place for this sentiment here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.....or for barfing. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World Student Christian Federation#National Student Christian Movements; not independently notable. Lacks WP:SIGCOV for a stand-alone article; the exerpt above is from a piece that's based on an interview; therefore, it's not suitable for establishing notability. Mostly unsourced WP:ADVOCACY and not suitable for inclusion in this form. Anything useful (which is not much) can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an article that quotes multiple people. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SCM was an significant movement. The article needs to get in shape, but AfD is not a clean-up service and the refernces available so far are good.BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG. A commenter in the 2008 debate (which resoundingly closed KEEP) also mentions the book A Short History of the Student Christian Movement in Canada, by Margaret Beatie. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's a shit-ton of sources for this organization on Newspapers.com when you switch over to Canadian papers. For example, HERE is coverage from the Winnipeg Tribune about the group's 1931 conference, substantial coverage. Easy GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And THIS is substantial coverage from the same paper on the SCM's 1933 campaign in favor of a National Day of Prayer called for by its international governing body. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's is ANOTHER piece dedicated to covering the group's 1948 annual conference. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite's sources. feminist (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Edwards (actor, born 1966)

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

Does not appear to be a notable actor; coverage (at least online) appears to be lacking, and his roles appear to be mostly small roles that don't meet WP:ENT. It's possible that some offline coverage exists; if they do, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep really short stub article right now, but it seems the actor has 65 acting credits to his name on IMDB. The common name makes online search difficult.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a quantity over quality case: he does seem to have plenty of roles, but most of those appear to be bit or at best supporting. And even with disambiguations, I really couldn't find much about him, so despite his common name, that might not be a factor in looking for sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But "quality" is not a measure for achieving notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of roles do not add to notability if they are all bit parts. No evidence that his roles have ever risen to the level of being significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IMDB is not a credible source; one can pay to have inclusion. A film student could conceivably have dozens of roles in films that will never be seen outside of that particular school. Ifnord (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sankar Induchoodan

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

Per searches and a lack of sourcing in the article, this guy fails WP:GNG, he also clearly fails WP:NACTOR as he has only had one minor role in a film. WP:TOOSOON — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable actor with only an insignificant role in a regional film. Fails WP:NACTOR Hagennos (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Association of Landscape Architects

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

I could not find anything that could be described as significant coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's tough to find sources. I did discover that they were founded in 1968.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:A7 and WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skyparksecure

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

Dubiously sourced marketing speak article that does not WP:NCORP. !dave 22:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No reliable sources and appears promotional. Tacyarg (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 / G11; completely nn and promo 'cruft. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet notability requirements. promotional artspam. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BA Merchant Services

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

It is a routine practice for corporations to create holding companies like this one to temporarily "own" assets being transferred in a merger or purpose. These holding companies should pass a higher bar to demonstrate independently notable, and in this case this lack of notability is borne out in the absence of independent reliable sources on this entity. bd2412 T 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete I believe the relevant policy is the WP:CORPDEPTH one. This article has few sources and I can't see many more on a Google search, it would seem to me that the coverage in independent sources does not reach the standard needed by the policy. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree that holding companies cannot be notable, but this one doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I initially found this and this which are in-depth, but according to the company website, this is a different company altogether. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that I would characterize that one as a temporary holding company at all - it appears to be more of a going concern. If an article on that company is made, this title can redirect there. bd2412 T 20:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  - That is exactly what I was thinking. However, I cannot locate anything on BA Merchant Services other than to verify it existed at one point. I stated to work on a draft of the other company but not sure that redirecting BA Merchant Services to the new company would be appropriate being that they are in fact two separate companies and doing so could confuse readers. That's just my opinion though. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, that definitely makes sense. bd2412 T 00:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted for failure to have achieved notability at this time. Opinions of editors with newly created accounts are discounted due to their likely lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (all keep votes other than the article creator come from accounts created within the past few weeks). bd2412 T 19:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non è mai Passato

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

The plethora of references provide no evidence of notability (they're functionally equivalent to IMDB, apart from a couple of refs which don't apply to the film). This is unsurprising because it's a short low budget film that hasn't been released yet. Requests for the author to read and comprehend WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:NFILM have gone nowhere. The film may or may not achieve notability after release, but it hasn't yet (WP:NFF). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The film is present on IMDb, MUBI, Allocine, Port.hu, AllMovie, FilmAffinity, TV Time, Orange SA, Adoro Cinema, FilmTV (Mondadori), Senscritique, CinemaItaliano, CSFD, Filmstarts, Letteboxd, Trailer Addict etc. Moreover the film is also present in the Corriere della Sera and other local/regional newspapers. Giovannix94 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all listings, not reliable sources covering them in-depth.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is a list of trusted sites except IMDb which can be modified by users only after approval. Giovannix94 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you think a "trusted" site is but it's not WP:COVERAGE and if it's like iMDb, it's certainly not a reliable. A list /= a valid source to establish notability.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The principal photography of the film is confirmed by reliable sources, in addition there is also the trailer of the film that proves the reliability and the release in 2018 (WP:NFF). Alexandros8998 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided in the article are independent of each other (there are also national newspapers), this proves the reliability of the film. (WP:N and WP:NFILM) Lester Joice (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:TOOSOON applies here. PhilKnight (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Film respects WP:NFILM. Kenny34568 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Keep !voters all have few edits, and at least some appear to have an undeclared conflict of interest. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are unfounded accusations, having few changes does not mean anything, but since you put it on this floor and you play evidently dirty,I have verified that for a long time you are eliminating numerous pages that meet the requirements,including this film, an administrator has already told you that he meets the requirements (not accepting your quick deletion). You are doing everything to eliminate it again. Giovannix94 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It passes WP:NFILM. This movie is present in national newspapers and has reliable sources. Ciccio.santini (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please have opinions by editors with more than a handful of edits each?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I vote for the keep, the film fully meets the requirements. '"Xargov'" 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Well, first off whether Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum or not is of no relevance to the question of whether we can have an article discussing this. We have plenty of articles on even bogus things and the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia relevant to this are WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS not "this (possibly) didn't happen". Apparently as-is it's not clear if the article topic merits being its own page or whether this will change in the future, so going for "no consensus". I don't see much discussion on the NOTNEWS point, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference in the 2016 United Kingdom referendum on exiting the European Union

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

This article is entirely based on rumors and political speculation. Not encyclopedic until something concrete emerges. — JFG ^talk 01:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think this is as much of a hoax as a lot of the other Russian interference garbage out there. However, given the *article is sourced and this has gotten media coverage, its a legitimate topic. Of course guidelines in WP:FRINGE must be followed.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article appears reasonable and sourced, no applicable criteria given for deletion. Artw (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JFG. No reliable sources have claimed that Russia interfered.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable issue, and many reliable sources, including US Senate report, multiple published academic articles, numerous journalist sources. Wik idea 07:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or *Merge There really is not all that much here, sure its sourced, but there is just not that much of a story. Really this is too minor to be anything more then a side show to the Brexit page. And it is not a US senate report, it was by one parties members.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete sourced speculation and suspicions are still just speculation and suspicion. There are a lot of people here who need to learn that, in the short term, news reports are not reliable sources by our standards. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. This stuff might be worth a mention at Foreign electoral intervention, but there’s not enough yet for a full standalone article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story is only beginning to come to light and should be given more time to see what develops. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Russian interference in Brexit or Brexit and Russia. Informally speaking, there is no doubts that Russian interference to influence Brexit had indeed occur, and the only question is about the scale of the operations. But regardless, the subject/controversy was widely covered in reliable sources (see here and Google search). It was also covered in Russian language sources. Just a few examples: comments by informed people immediately after the Brexit, a denial by Putin (making an official comment shows significance/notability of the subject), and the recent UK inquiry. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the nomination that this is speculation. This is alleged Russian interference in the Brexit referendum. Based at the moment on rumours, rather than any clear evidence yet. The US Senate minority report suggested that Russia may have influenced the Brexit campaign. There are many things which may have happened during the Brexit campaign, but we don't know them yet. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life Fitness

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

Artspam. Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG or notability guideline for coprporations. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Its not spam, its a brand of exercise equipment that has been around for a long time. Here's a few more sources (there are already some reliable sources in the article): [7] [8] [9]--Rusf10 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the references supplied above by Rusf10, There is this from the LA Times that says it has become the "largest manufacture of computerized fitness equipment" (although the reference is from 1991), an Orange Coast Magazine article from 1991, and more in-depth history from this book. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of hiking trails in Maryland

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

Should be deleted as WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list is just a collection of non-notable trails, many of which are not even a mile in length. Not a single one of them has an article. Rusf10 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. Here is a selection of sources. Andrew D. (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiking Maryland: A Guide for Hikers & Photographers
50 Hikes in Maryland
Hiking Maryland and Delaware
Hike Maryland: A Guide to the Scenic Trails of the Free State
Hiking, Cycling, and Canoeing in Maryland: A Family Guide
Circuit Hikes in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania
Best Easy Day Hikes Baltimore
Doggin' Maryland: The 100 Best Places to Hike With Your Dog in the Free State
Best Hikes Near Baltimore
Appalachian Trail Guide to Maryland and Northern Virginia

Keep but limit to the articles that are in the relevant category: Category:Hiking trails in Maryland, which has a number of notable and cited articles instead of the current indiscriminate and unsourced list. I will be making this change shortly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could support that, those in the category actually seem to be notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the list article per WP:CLNT as discussed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I will withdraw the nomination.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical marine climate

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

Overly specific topic. The exact term returns only 198 hits, and only false positives on Google Books. I was unable to find any sources covering this exact term. If anything is salvageable, merge to Tropical climate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tropical climate as that article is not too large for merging Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] don't look like false positives to me. Nor does its use by the CIA World Factbook, the National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, weather forecasters on Kwajalein, or the weather service of the Cayman Islands. Most of the 500+ Google Scholar hits on the exact phrase look, on a first perusal, to be about the topic of this page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important topic that could be expanded. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Needs to be expanded, not deleted. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly (based on the references above, some of which I hope XOR'easter will add to the article, please) a notable climate term, worthy of a page in its own right. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the process of sourcing and cleanup. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @TenPoundHammer: Where are you getting "198 hits"? –dlthewave ☎ 02:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Entering the exact term "Tropical marine climate" on Google. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: That's odd, I got 11,600 hits for that search. –dlthewave ☎ 13:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussed in details in academic book Principles of Geography and per XOR'easter's additional sources. There are also sources right in the article. And this is nomination on false premise from the beginning. Number of google hits is not what shows notability. I just hope there will be solution to this wasting of people's time soon –Ammarpad (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recognized and universally used climatic division, Scholar is your friend. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ammarpad and Elmidae Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we should not delete articles about official climate designations, nothing could be more encyclopedic. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google hits do not establish notability, and I have absolutely no idea where 198 hits came from. I strangely get more than dlthewave when omitting the term wikipedia in my search. 35,300. Some sources have been found above, confirm the 'notability' of this climate (???). !dave 09:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WebIT.pk

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article claims the company has customers in the single thousands. I could find no sources on the company. It is possible there are Pakistani sources I am unable to locate, if these can be found to support notability, then wonderful. As is, it does not appear to be a notable organization. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional page on a non-notable ORG. Likely a paid work. The same user previous tried to create this page several times at this title and at WEBIT.PK but failed. couldn't found any coverage in RS. I suggest the title to be salted when and if deleted. --Saqib (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references in the article and no independent references found. Claims like "The company is known for its advertising on TV and in the newspapers." suggest it's not notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Northern Setup

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

Fails WP:NCYCLING cannot find proof that team has met notability criteria. This reads like a PR release. Rogermx (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rattlesnake (album)

This is a well established album and band in the indie music scene. Most things cited on the band wiki. Not sure the album needs a wiki, but it is well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffbaker80 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NALBUM. Self-published. Only notability appears to be "IMA Awards" which themselves were deleted at AfD as mainly a PR exercise. The band itself The Dirty Clergy looks borderline. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Album is already featured more extensively on The Dirty Clergy anyway. = paul2520 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unani Medical Colleges in India

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

Rationale: WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:DIRECTORY - This is just a list of not particularly important information, with barely any context. An article on "Unani Medical Colleges in India" could be an option but the list page is just a directory and needs to go. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC) AFD request NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As NeilN writes, it is both indiscriminate and a directory in terms of WP. I cannot see any saving grace. It needs putting out of its misery. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that is not my comment; it is the IP's. I only assisted them with opening this AFD. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with NielN. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:DIRECTORY Bythebooklibrary (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Indiscriminate and WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DAGames

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

I am unable to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Google search just comes up with places his music can be found. ... discospinster _talk 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karthi - Rajath Untitled film

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

The film has received some coverage in reliable sources; however, it seems too soon at best for it to have an article considering it doesn't even have a title yet. There's not even any indication that it has started principal photography either. I would not be opposed to draftifying considering the article subject will definitely be notable once it's released, it just seems too soon for it to have an article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hardly any concrete info out - as per other films, wait till the title is out. Editor 2050 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find anything which will make this film notable. It even does not have a name as of date. Fails WP:NFILM and also is a case of WP:TOOSOON

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pulgaon Cotton Mills Ltd.

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

Fails WP:NCORP. MT Train^Discuss 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC) MT Train^Discuss 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Could not find anything notable on search Hagennos (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piranha: Wolf In The Water

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

Could not find anything to suggest this is a notable film. Mattg82 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability, as I am not able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. It does not even appear that the Killer Instincts series is notable either (otherwise I would have suggested mentioning this particular film in a series article). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 15:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Additional discussion regarding the article and its content can continue on its talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfi Hoxha

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

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

non notable TeeVeeed (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and contains WP:OR and trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs improvement, however subject is covered in depth for his allegedly senior role in IS. Assessing WP:SOLDIER for IS is difficult (though he allegedly is in a senior role and possibly the top American officer), however subject has in-depth coverage meeting GNG, e.g.: A New American Leader Rises in ISIS, Atlantic, Is Zulfi Hoxha – or Abu Hamza al-Amriki – ISIS’ new American leader?, Al-Arabiya, The ISIS 'Senior Commander' Who Grew Up on the Jersey Shore, NBC Phili, ISIS Video Shows New Weapons, ‘American’ Urging Attacks in U.S., NBC.Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (AFD nominating editor) Non notable BLP one instance of alledged notariety based on mention in one Atlantic arcticle. (all other news refs are based on this one recent article). The main character involved in the FBI investigation who was sentenced to prison is not even mentioned. Guy allegeddly joined isis and appeared in propaganda video. At the very most merge with another article or stubify.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope - Also Covered in May 2017, well before the Atlantic article in 2018 - see - NBC, Newsweek. Propaganda exponents may be quite notable (e.g. Iva Toguri D'Aquino or William Joyce), and in any event it would seem that openly broadcasting your identity would seem to preclude most BLP concerns.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm-good job searching with his other name but this is still the alleged one and only propaganda video incident. Do we have articles for every actor in every commercial for instance? I had an article deleted about a local figue who appeared on 3 seasons of the NJ Housewives and had multiple years worth of news mentions for example. The fact that he is "allegedly" notorius for "alledgedly" one thing still makes me say that this is a non notable BLP, but again I would agree with a merge to another topic or stubification. The use of "alledged" in all articles/sources affects this as well.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per multiple source (including the Atlantic and subsequent reporting - which is basing these on US government statements) - he is allegedly a senior commander in IS, and a major recruiter. This is well beyond "appearing in one video" (he actually seems to have allegedly appeared in several).Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TeeVeeed You can't vote twice you already voted when you proposed it for deletion.--Shrike (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from the nominator; the nomination itself is considered as the delete !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a May 2017 story about him from La Stampa to the article. After reading La Stampa and The Atlantic, I confess to being genuinely shocked. Margate City, New Jersey is, after all, the tamest beach town in the entire world. More to the point, this is WP:SIGCOV of a notable jihadi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another subject written about because of the news; we get it, terrorism sells papers/earns subscribers but editors are supposed to know better and be above that. Of course, I predict a few editors will automatically !vote keep regardless of the policies we must apply to such an individual because of their emotions on this topic. Regardless, this is yet another case of a BLP being fueled by speculation and the same ol' rehashed story that shows no indication of encyclopedic value. Go figure.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also Note Hoxha's connection with the culprits in the 2015 Boston beheading plot, detailed in The Atlantic article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes noted. I would be in favor of merging this guy to that article. They alledgedly recruited him and sponsored his trip overseas to join isis, but he really has not done anything except alledgedly appear in propaganda. Also yes emotions, and no real notability here.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article and those identified and / or added by Icewhiz and E.M.Gregory all establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No-that link doesn't even work haha.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is upsetting and I am just going to go ahead and say that I have a COI here and every other LOCAL editor here does too if they really think about it for a minute. I am not editing this topic from this point on. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TeeVeeed, It is exceedingly bad form not only to WP:BLUDGEON the process as you are doing, but to delete well-sourced, relevant information from the page as you did here: [19]. The source was an article in La Stampa, translated and republished by the BBC, it was linked to Proquest - which is paywalled. I hate paywalls too. But a paywall is no excuse for deleting a source and accuse an fellow editor of OR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously notable subject.--Zoupan 01:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is shallow and passing. Not every person appearing in a propaganda video is worth having a seperate article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, there is INDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV in articles in The Atlantic, The Star-Ledger and The Philadelphia Inquirer now on the page, a quick gNews search brings up more reported coverage with journalists digging up the details of his childhood and young adult years. This in addition to his connection with the 2015 Boston beheading plot and the international coverage of his jihad videos in May 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More manipulation of the sources. There is no connection to the Boston plot. The Boston plotters helped fund his trip to Syria; Hoxha in no way, however, participated in their plan.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "connection" is that the plotters were in contact with Hohxa to the extent that, according to the article in The Atlantic, they raised money to fund his travel to Syria via Turkey, helped make the arrangements, and he accepted the money they raised and the arrangements for travel and contacting ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That accurately summarizes what I just said with more words, yes. You can't make the claim This in addition to his connection with the 2015 Boston beheading plot when he never planned, funded, participated, or (to the best of our knowledge) even knew about the plot. The most you can accurately say is he knew the plotters for an unrelated reason which equates to absolutely nothing notability-wise. But, please, push another narrative that doesn't represent the sources faithfully.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- All of this article's sources are based on a single article of The Atlantic. Some of the top newspaper are yet to publish his story, editor could hold NYT as example. I know and agree that he got deepth coverage from media. But think once, if his story turned false tommorrow then it will hardly have any notability. So, I think the topic needs further confirmation and verification. Until then, it doesn't deserve a separete article. Bests Ominictionary (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check Ominictionary is mistaken. There was a round of international coverage in May 2017 - 8 months before The Atlantic ran its story. Also note the INDEPTH stories in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the The Star-Ledger and other media that were inspired by the story in The Atlantic to dig into Hoxha's childhood and youth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON / WP:NOTNEWS. This is based on the story in the Atlantic and local coverage, also driven by Atlantic. Such as: [20], with routine soundbites from his coworker (yes, he was weird) and his mum (we are very upset). I would argue that domestic “terrorist” James Alex Fields is more notable than this guy, but Fields does not have a stand-alone article. When it comes to Hoxha, no apparent lasting significance just yet. There’s no suitable redirect target so it’s a “delete” for me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.E.coffman fails to mention extensive coverage of his video appearances in the spring/summer of 2017, in European media in several languages. Also, the coverage in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the The Star-Ledger, and local papers researched and verified the sort of biographical facts (birth, family, schools attended, and work history) that makd a subject pass WP:ANYBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS releases a lot of videos and they get covered. I don’t see a need for a bio in this case. Yes, the subject exists, but he’s not encyclopedically relevant just yet. I don’t see in-depth, significant coverage here, hence my “delete” vote. Hope this clarifies my position. K.e.coffman (talk)

Keep: When your sources are worldwide and multilingual and include among others
• The Atlantic
•The Star Ledger
• NBC 10 Philly
• NBC News proper
• Newsweek
• BBC
• La Stampa, and the
• Philadelphia Inquirer,
to say that something is "not notable" is untenable. Meets WP:GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orascom Development

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

Non-notable Egyptian company. I have declined CSD; it was nominated as "G11 - pure advertising" but I disagree that this would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopaedic. It also just scrapes across the A7 bar, in my view, with the description of their operations in the Middle East. Nonetheless, it does not seem to me to meet the GNG or anything at NORG. GoldenRing (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess. The article is abysmally sourced, but Google News turns up multiple examples of decent coverage that look like the company meets WP:CORP. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as above: it is a well-known business. Dormskirk (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Beebe

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

Fighter career does not meet WP:NMMA. Last fight was 2 years ago. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.~~ ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i have removed this afd from the women's afd list as Beebe is a fella. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. With no top tier fights, and no fights at all in nearly 3 years, he's nowhere close to meeting WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Rivera-Parr

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

As per norm. Random career as a fighter. Does not meet WP:NMMA, WP:NBOX and WP:NKICK. Only has 2 MMA professional fights and loss both of them. 4 fights in Kickboxing, loss 3 and draw 1. Boxing career was in local event with 2 wins over 5 fights.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Angie Parr fought Julie Kitchen for the World Muaythai Council which meet WP:KICK standards. See Sources [21][22][23][24][25][26]. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So she did - struck my Delete vote.PRehse (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NKICK. Papaursa (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per A10. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaundryPizza03 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu songs recorded by Kumar Sanu

Totally useless and weak article with just one song mention and no reference. মাখামাখি (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) মাখামাখি (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied There was already a discography for the singer in existence anyway. Deb (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by me, and moved to Future Transport Helicopter ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Transport Helicopter

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

I admit to not being an aviation specialist, but it basically looks like this project never materialized and never generated much attention. I found periodic mentions of it through the years, but nothing particularly in-depth. No mention on the Airbus website.

This is complicated by the fact that "Heavy Transport Helicopter" is also a generic descriptor, but even adding Eurocopter or Airbus (now the owners of Eurocopter) to the search produced little of value.

I'm happy to withdraw if more knowledgeable parties have sources I wouldn't have thought to check. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Augh, I just realized the German article has a couple of decently in-depth sources ([27], [28], [29]). I'm genuinely upset with myself because usually interlanguage links are the first thing I check to poach sources from. Also, it looks like in German the terminology was "Future Transport Helicopter", which also hampered some of my other Googling. Chiswick Chap, would you consider changing your delete vote so this can be withdrawn? And also, would anyone object if I moved this to "Future Transport Helicopter" in order to free up "heavy transport helicopter" to be an article about the general type of helicopter? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep, ~~nom seems to be right that this never went anywhere, but happy to be corrected if anyone knows better.~~Happy to go along with nom's changes above, including a move to "Future Transport Helicopter". The article's title could certainly find a use on the broader topic of heavy transport helicopters (there are American and Russian ones, and maybe a Chinese one in the pipeline), but this article isn't that. Best start over. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indecisive although a broader European solution failed and the programme stalled, the text has some historical value. It is now part of the narrative of Germany's renewal plans for its heavy helicopter fleet. In a few years they will replace their CH-53's with some 60-120 heavy helicopters - most likely of an existing design. Here's an article from 2017 about the HTH-programme: ^[1] MoRsE (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::Hmmmm. I'm not sure that one source is enough for a standalone article. Would it be better off merged somewhere? A section in Eurocopter, or European Defense Agency? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milenko Miljković

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

Promotional article about an individual who doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable, run-of-the-mill businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah bin Saad

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

Abdullah bin Saad is the seventh son of Saad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. I do not believe Abdullah meets WP:PERSON and he doesn't inherit notability from his father WP:INVALIDBIO. As far as I can tell, he has no official position in Saudi Arabia, and there is nothing in his professionally-writen article that suggests notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep in mind that if you are searching for sources online they may be in Arabic and not English. For example on Argaam's Akhbaar24 he has a tag [30] which shows he was in articles way back in 2012. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A press release, pure and simple. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliad Bar

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

Per this copyright statement on commons [31] - this is an autobiography - and I'll note that the same user created this on 5 different language Wikipedias (en, he, no, pl, sv, zh) - so the cross wiki count is insignificant in this case. This is an art teacher that teaches at the local high school. He has perhaps coverage in local papers - nothing else. He has exhibited in local galleries. BEFORE shows very little sourcing on him. There is a lifeguard, with the same name, who I believe (based on the photographs/age and no connection implied here - or in the pieces on the lifeguard - they are both from the same area in Israel, but this is not an uncommon name) is a different individual who was in the news in 2017 - [32] [33] (the lifeguard isn't notable, nor would this event make the artist notable if it were the same individual) Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Whats interesting is if you look at the gallery images he has uploaded, he is piping his user name to his real name, in addition to clearly stating own work, see [34]. The user in question has also not edited any pages other than this one. - Galatz ^Talk 12:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As you might see on his DodaRuti commons talk-page they had some "issues" regarding copyright of several uploaded images - that were apparently resolved, on the commons, by declaring to be the creator - e.g. post to User_talk:Mbch331, or post to User_talk:Natuur12.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Lacks sources to establish notability. Vanity page.198.58.168.40 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform to publish autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sushil Kumar (reality show contestant)

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

Subject lies on the fringe for BLP notability. Not the first person to win the game show, but the first when prize money was increased. MT Train^Discuss 06:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC) MT Train^Discuss 06:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either of the game shows the contestant was on. Simply being on a game show and being the first winner when the monetary prize has been increased does not seem a strong enough justification for a standalone article. Vorbee (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Being on a talk show does not satisfy notability Hagennos (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete participating in a reality show is not enough to gain notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bilzerian

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

"mostly known for his lavish lifestyle" Remarkable number of BLP violation. The principle here is NOT TABLOID. Article originated by now-banned sockmaster. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was editi zillion times after origination. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> keep. There are hundreds if not thousands of famous for being famous socialites on wikipedia. IMO meets GNG for non-trivial life events. If it were for me I'd deleted them all poker players and Kardashians. But obviously these are modern heroes of dumb masses fed by mass media. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fundamental principle is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia . we do have articles on opeople who arenotable for getting publicity, band assorted socialites, but the combination of relatively minor coverage and total puffery makes this the most extreme of them all. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, tabloid being one of them. The individual has not accomplished anything significant. Article consists of trivia such as: "In February 2015, Bilzerian pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of "negligently failing to extinguish a fire in the open" and was fined $17,231.50" Etc. Sources are not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His only fame seem to be his social media popularity. I do not think it is enough. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most famous media personalities in the world - proved not only by 15 Wikipedia articles in other languages but also by record-breaking number of followers on Instagram and Facebook (thus his nickname) as well as daily coverage in the press and on television internationally. A few users' opinion about his relevance here shouldn't compromise the fact that Bilzerian is way too overqualified for all WP:BLP requirements. Shalom11111 (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article has some fluff, it does have enough events that add notability to the guy.--Frmorrison (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ultra fluffy and lacking in encyclopaedic value. Most of the content is negative and unless there is opposing positrive coverage then this is too insignificant a person for such unflattering coverage. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is tabloid fluff, supported by other tabloid fluff. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dial911 (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unsavory as his character is, he passes WP:GNG [35][36][37][38][39][40]. Even if he's done stuff we don't deem important, the media finds interest in him. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a clown, but a notable one with lots of press coverage for his buffoonery. We can't have only Albert Schweitzer and Pope John Paul II articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per references provided by Indy beetle above, topic meets GNG requirements. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transit X

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

Startup founded in 2015. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. purely promotional, with not actual notability possible, because the company has never actually done anything. All that's there as refs are press releases/advertorials, which are useless as sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Corporate spam with zero indications of notability. Fails WP:SPIP. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, topic fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kinchen

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE CASSIOPEIA (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are not such as to cause the article to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article content alone suggests the subject is not notable, and the lack of supporting sources clinches it. At best this is a case of NOTYET. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miri Hanai

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to an online directory. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PORNBIO is irrelevant here since she is not a porn actress. Even her Japanese Wiki page does not categorize her that way. She is a gravure idol, which is different. A brief search of Japanese news sites come up with the kind of coverage one expects of a well-known gravure idol: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], etc. Since it is hard to apply WP:NACTOR to gravure idols, it might be best to simply consider her in relation to WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- well, the coverage seems to be of tabloid variety, interviews, and publicity / promotion, as in:

"What kind of images can be seen?【Hanai Miki】 I am dancing at the stairs and shaking at the rodeo machine. The costumes are fascinating in the Showa style, and there are quite a lot of things such as high-leg transparent."
Hanai, who appeared in a nurse cosplay [uniform] at an event [to promote the DVD] that contains a lot of cosplay scenes, said, "There are cosplays and classic massage scenes this time. There is no overall story, but photographers improvise; I would like you to see my vivid figure to respond to it." Etc.

I don't believe that this is sufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To make an argument about WP:V, you need to argue that the sources themselves are not reliable. Picking what you in your personal opinion think are frivolous quotes is not an argument. (I can find quotes from the same articles that give pertinent information about her career, etc.) Some of these articles are from major news organizations in Japan such as Tokyo Sports, Sankei Sports, ASCII, Asahi Geino, Shukan Playboy, etc., which are used all over the English Wikipedia, especially in entertainment coverage. WP:V, again, does not ask us to judge whether the content fits some standard of "serious" coverage (a word it does not use; it also does not mention the word "tabloid"), precisely because it wants to avoid personal bias. The issue is whether the publication sources are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you have an argument that the above newspapers and magazines do not fit that, please present it. Michitaro (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not challenging the sources based on WP:V. I’m challenging them based on WP:N. As a gravure idol (pin-up model), the subject falls under WP:ENT, which leads to the same guidance as WP:NACTOR. I don’t see evidence of her meeting this notability guideline; she appears to be a run-of-the-mill model. The sources presented are interviews / WP:SPIP / WP:PRIMARY: Ms Hanai talking about herself and promoting her work. For the subject to be considered notable, we’d need independent, secondary coverage that provides assessment / critique of her career, not self-promotion. If such coverage exists, I’d be happy to review it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Whether she does porn or is an actress really isn't important. She still fails WP:ENT.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of coverage of this gravure aetist as cited avove. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- I addressed the sources above; they are:

Self-promotion,
Tabloids,
Passing mentions,
Etc.

None are suitable for establishing notability for a BLP; hence the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the absence. I've been off Wikipedia for three weeks. I still think there are significant faults in most of the nominator's claims, beginning of course with the gross error of not understanding who this person was before nominating for delete. (That was why I quickly accumulated some sources to show that WP:BEFORE had not been properly performed.) Most of the sources I listed are not self-promotion in that they are produced by reliable third party sources, and are not self-produced. I already made the argument that the claim of "tabloids" (and thus that these fail WP:V) is not supported. Also, all of the sources I provided have her name in the title and thus are not "passing mentions." However, the nominator has made one important point, which is that many of the sources available are close to what one could call interviews. There is an argument that can be made that the very fact someone is interviewed by a reliable third-party publication is a sign of notability, but as WP:INTERVIEW states these have to be treated with caution. I finally had time to do a bit more searching, and I must confess I found it hard to find articles on the net that are not in that category (with some exceptions, like [54]). I checked Web Oya, the database of the Oya Soichi Bunko, the primary scholarly database for popular magazines, and she has 138 articles listed, but about 130 of those are classified as gurabia or interviews. There are a few of articles not classified as either of those in well-known weekly magazines such as Flash (June 2009 and March 2003) and Friday (April 2006), but I cannot check those personally. Again, it is clear from the fact she has had 138 articles that she is a popular gravure idol, but I am not well versed enough in that world to judge whether she "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" or "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to the gurabia world. She thus still might be notable under WP:ENTERTAINER but I confess I don't know that world enough. That is why I still have not voted keep or delete. My initial participation in this AfD was, again, to correct some major errors on the part of the nominator. Michitaro (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen I Tour

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT. --wooden superman 14:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs in the article, google reveals a few web pages which suggest there was no "Queen I Tour" and the name was made up by a fan to describe there first concerts. Szzuk (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It pains me to delete anything related to Queen. Still, I can't find any WP:RS for Queen I Tour. The only things I found were totally unreliable, and/or mirrors of our own article (including a Spanish translation!). -- RoySmith (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing motivation

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

Meandering, focus-free essay, no sourcing found. If there is relevant content here, it can be moved to motivation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with motivation, as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not convinced there is much to salvage here. It's a dictdef followed by a how-to, blown up with lots of verbiage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – with motivation. References^[1]^[2] have been given for content. Leo1pard (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this particular article is student-guide content; but a proper cited academically-oriented article probably could be written on the topic. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTHOWTO as this is basically all adivce on how to get yourself to write. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems a text-book example of NOTHOWTO. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NOTHOWTO & unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – with Reading motivation. The only content in this article that can be salvaged is content with references that are related to Reading motivation,^[1]^[2] and could hence be kept in the latter article. Leo1pard (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Mcdaniel, R. (1970, June 10). Motivating Students. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/motivating-students/
^ ^a ^b Teacher Practices that Impact Reading Motivation. (2017, April 13). Retrieved April 21, 2017, from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/teacher-practices-impact-reading-motivation

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angurbala Parida

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

It appears she's won some awards, but I couldn't really find much that discuss either her or the awards she won. It's possible (even likely) though that sources may exist in Indian languages, but from what I could find so far, there's really not much coverage that exists for her, at least in English. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mitchell College. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mitchell College

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

Not a significant or notable enough topic to warrant a stand-alone article in my view. Poorly sourced. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any adequately-sourced content to Mitchell College. There's not enough here to justify a stand-alone page, per nom. Sources all needed to be verified – #2, for example, does not mention the college at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitchell College. Does not require a stand alone article for alumni with just five entries. Ajf773 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the title does not even make sense, no reason for this unjustified content split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A lively debate, at the end of which consensus seems to be that the nomination tended towards being itself ...misguided. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive and linguistic theories of composition

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

Orphaned essay from the stone age. Linguistic theory doens't even have an article, so this article is entirely meaningless. It's just a rambling essay with no focus. If there is a thing here, then WP:TNT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The rationale given for deletion is curious. Physical theory does not have its own article (it is a redirect to Theoretical physics). Does it now follow that Physical theories modified by general relativity is entirely meaningless? That is a non sequitur, and likewise for the nominator's conclusion that the nominated article is meaningless. But even if the conclusion was valid, the article is not patent nonsense – far from it. Being orphaned or from the stone age are also not valid deletion rationales. Appeals to WP:TNT are even an implicit argument for keeping the article. In short, the nomination fails to present a valid argument for deletion, which is a reason for a speedy keep. --Lambiam 23:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: Where are the sources? How about that? Is that a valid argument? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: It is a valid reason if the content of the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, or if thorough attempts to find reliable sources have failed. The mere absence of sources is not by itself a valid argument – or else almost every stub article should be deleted before it has a chance to be developed. --Lambiam

The sources are in the Works Cited section. They've been there all along. –dlthewave ☎ 14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: @Dlthewave: And that means the article is now automatically FA right? No one ever needs to do anything to it again? It's notable, it's the best thing ever on this goddamn wiki? How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally uncalled for. Everyone is a volunteer here, you don't need to talk to them like that.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: That comment was out of line. Now, I don't like the look of this article, but your behavior at AfD has been most toxic. Like I've suggested to you before, you ought to improve these articles yourself instead of running them down for deletion at the first sight of a cleanup tag. Or, as you so eloquently put it: "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" -Indy beetle (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The article is well sourced. As the nominator was given succinct response in one of their bad nominations, "TNT is not policy, the actual policy says it is better to have poor article than none." Comparison with other topic don't have article is also empty thought here. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unimpressive soft-science theory not to my own taste but sourced and capable of improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - adequate sources in the article to demonstrate notability. Since I don't don't see how TNT is applicable here I see no reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus per sources presented by Northamerica1000 appear to pass WP:AUD. The strongest sources presented are Oxford University Press and The News & Observer are non-local sources giving the cafe significant coverage. Others have argued that these sources are not enough for notability. The vote count and arguments lean toward keeping, however there is still disagreement, hence a lack of consensus. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe

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

Non-notable restaurant in a college town. All of the in-depth coverage is from the The News & Observer, the regional paper for this area of North Carolina, and given the proximity to Chapel Hill, it really is more local puff coverage than anything else. You have other coverage in IndyWeek: a local piece that does reviews of virtually every resturant in the area, and the Daily Tar Heel, the student newspaper of UNC-Chapel Hill, which doesn't count towards notability. There are some mentions in larger publications such as HuffPost and The Guardian, but these are just passing along with other coverage of Chapel Hill food establishments, and don't meet the significant coverage threshold. This is simply a generic Indian place that has gotten some press because of the social-justicey feel of its background. That is quite common in the area, and nothing about it really stands out. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination strikes me as odd. It clearly passes the general notability guideline, because a plethora of reliable sources that have more than "mentions": The News & Observer, Indy Week, The Story with Dick Gordon, Grist, etc. No part of the general notability guideline says that it has to have national coverage or anything remotely close. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- IndyWeek is a local publication that reviews literally every restaurant in the greater Triangle region at some point. The News & Observer is the only real journalistic publication in the region and this type of coverage would be typical for many restaurants: it is routine and doesn't come near our notability threshold. Grist is an interview with the owner, which means it is a primary source that doesn't establish notability. Even if we change the GNG to include primary sourcing, it would fail WP:ORGIND for lacking intellectual independence from the company. Chapel Hill does have some notable resturants (Top of the Hill Restaurant & Brewery being the first that comes to mind), but this isn't one of them. There are literally three Indian restaurants on the same block, and this one is nothing special. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because a publication regularly reviews restaurants doesn't make it inherently not meet the GNG. Also, ORGIND says nothing about interviews, and saying that other restaurants exist that are more notable doesn't make this one less. You may wish to see my working page which lists bare URLs of sources, such as the coverage on PBS (albeit a local affiliate, it's still a reliable source). --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The GNG requires secondary sourcing that is intellectually independent. Interviews are neither secondary nor intellectually independent. We never count them at AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You may never count them at AFD, but many do. A media organisation choosing to interview and publish the interview is of course an indication of notability, as it is an editorial judgement on whether the subject of the interview is notable and so UHameltion is correct to bring them up as an indicator of notability. Egaoblai (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Disregarding the interviews, the restaurant has still been covered, see for example WP:AUD: "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" and that would be The News & Observer. One article in particular is "Vimala's Curryblossom Cafe starts next 5 years with $100,000 recipe for success", much more than a "puff" piece. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really. The News & Observer piece you cite is also primarily an interview that fails WP:ORGIND, particularly other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Additionally, like most regional press, theNews & Observer splits it's coverage between local and statewide/regional stories. In this case, the stories themselves are identified by the paper as being local (Chapel Hill and Orange County). These are human interest pieces that don't establish notability. We routinely delete organizations that are significantly more notable than this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I know that things get deleted that are notable, like PDQ (restaurant). I'd like to emphasize that just because things are local or include quotations doesn't meant that they don't establish notability. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is so homespun, so full of corny sentimentality ("the restaurant's policy of not turning away people who could not pay") that I can almost imagine the main chef sitting on her porch making dinner for the whole town while she whistles "They'll be Coming 'Round the Mountain." Not to mention the mild case of plagiarism from the News & Observer shown here, this article is remarkable only for its puffery.Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reasons for deletion. I invite you to improve the article. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn business only of local interest. Sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:AUD, and is mostly WP:SPIP: interviews and PR driven puff pieces. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article was created on 21:04, 26 December 2017‎ (link) by a relatively new user and then nominated for deletion 20 minutes later on 26 December 2017‎ (diff). Then, the user's work is chastised here with commentary such as "...homespun, so full of corny sentimentality", etc. Not commenting on notability at this time, but sheesh, really? See also WP:BITE. I hope the editor that created the article won't be discouraged and cease contributing to Wikipedia because of this matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:BEFORE searches, meets WP:AUD per the book source and meets WP:GNG. I agree that the article would benefit from copy editing, but the topic does meet notability guidelines, although not on a grand level. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Forked: A New Standard for American Dining. Oxford University Press. pp. 52–63.
"Vimala's Curryblossom Café receives national grant". WRAL-TV.
"Vimala’s Curryblossom Cafe starts next 5 years with $100,000 recipe for success". The News & Observer.
"Trump’s immigration ban hangs over refugee welcome lunch in Chapel Hill". The News & Observer.

Only the book source counts towards notability per our guidelines. The rest are primary as discussed above, and thus specifically excluded from counting towards notability by WP:N. That isn't even taking into account the local nature of the coverage. This is not enough to meet the notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This source has only one quote from the subject, and the rest is written entirely from the journalist's perspective. This source also has significant independent analysis from the journalist. It is quite normative for reporters to actually speak a bit with people involved in the companies they are reporting upon; to not do so would be biased and journalistically unobjective. Also, I'm a bit concerned that I had to come in here and present the book source in the first place. Are users actually researching notability via WP:BEFORE searches, or just basing it incorrectly upon the state of sourcing in articles? I found the book source simply by selecting the Gbooks link atop this discussion; it's the first link on the search results page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a review by the local TV station that reads like a press release and includes no journalistic analysis at all. It is a feel good local puff piece. The News & Observer piece you site isn't about the company at all: it is about the impact of the Trump administration's policies on local refugees who have lunch at the restaurant. That is not coverage of the restaurant, but of Donald Trump's immigration policies. Even if we were to agree that the content meets our standards for businesses (which it doesn't), they are also both local sources. I could literally create an article on every restaurant Franklin Street (Chapel Hill) based on this sourcing, because all the town has is a university, bars, and food. There is no way that any of this subject comes remotely close to meeting our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I agree that the article about the lunch doesn't offer a lot, but I view this as contributing to notability. It's a bylined news article objectively written by a journalist that is published by a reliable source and provides significant coverage about the topic, as does the book source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a local TV station. It fails WP:AUD. As does all the coverage form the News & Observer because it is from the local section, not their statewide or regional pieces. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AUD, " at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" to qualify notability (bold emphasis mine). Every source does not have to meet AUD, only one does. WP:GNG does not state that every source has to meet AUD, nor should it. Note that in my !vote above, I stated "meets WP:AUD per the book source". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources: local sources for restaurants in a small city normally cover essentially all local restaurants, and are therefore indiscriminate. Using them implies that all restaurants are notable. The promotional style of the article is also cvcery heavily marked, particularly the biographical details in the first paragraph, which in this case completely irrelevant to the importance of a restaurant (obviously bio details about a restauranteur's career are relevant, but usually not their childhood). DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might I add that "promotional style" can be fixed and several sources heavily draw on the restaurateur's childhood as a means of conveying influence over the food served. Your comments on editing are helpful; thanks! --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a strongly sourced article. A reminder to previous voters for delete that interviews are perfectly valid sources of notability, as choosing to publish an interview is an editorial decision and that local sources are welcome (and encouraged!) on Wikipedia. Some of the complaints about the article could be solved with WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. Egaoblai (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not. They are primary sources. Your keep vote has no basis in the notability guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Quoting Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability: "An independent interviewer represents the 'world at large' giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." --Lambiam 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but Retarget/Rename The focus of much of the available sources, and hence the article, is about her rather than purely about the restaurant itself, hence the article is poorly weighted and feels like COATRACK. Rename the article, and retarget to focus on her, with the cafe as a redirect to a section and material that doesn't really belong in the current article included. Additional coverage in the journal Southern Cultures (UNC published but presumably with a broader distribution), and long interviews on WUNC's The State of Things and the Story(NC regional, but may have been rebroadcast through other public radio). Brief mentions in the Guardian, and Mlive and key note at Chatham University in Pennsylvania. The grant was publicised in Forbes and Enterpreneur (these may not usable as RS due to paid placement?). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hydronium Hydroxide, these all appear to be primary sourcing. Is there any secondary sourcing that you would be able to find that would meet the GNG? If you think that the owner is notable, but the restaurant isn't, then this page should be deleted and a new article created on her. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TonyBallioni: The sources were mainly expanding on AUD (though several are not entirely primary), and NA1000's book find and the independent coverage (weakly) address N. I sit by retargetting as facilitating better structure, tone, and content but in the absence of support that's not the (Chapel) Hill I plan to die on. If there's something that is to be kept, then deletion plus recreation plus restoration to draft plus copyandpastemerge plus historymerge is excessive. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hydronium Hydroxide: that’s the thing, there isn’t anything here that remotely should be kept under NCORP, the creator has done a good job of WikiLawyering to the point where it is easy to ignore that the sourcing itself is significantly below anything we would expect for corporate notability, as is the coverage of the owner in terms of a BLP, for what it is worth, though there is a stronger claim here. The other thing to consider here is that the claim to notability is essentially that she is a poor business owner: she almost bankrupted her business and needed the grant to survive. That type of coverage, especially in local papers, should be strong evidence that a local restaurant is NOT notable, if anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing obviously fails the portion of WP:N that looks for "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos:: I invite you to change your conclusion. The guideline on notability states in WP:AUD that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". This exists per NorthAmerica1000 above, and if it's the state of sourcing actually in the article that bothers you, you can see that I've begun to add more. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"At least one" doesn't mean "if one exists the article must be kept". I went back through and looked at every single source and frankly I don't think it passes. They're almost all local (including a student paper), or they focus mainly on Vimala herself rather than the restaurant. The Grist one is not intellectually independent given that it literally starts by describing Vimala as a friend of the author's. The only really strong source is the segment from Forked. I think it's possible that Vimala herself could swing a GNG/ANYBIO pass, but I don't think the restaurant does. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerica1000 passes WP:AUD 42.111.196.105 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — 42.111.196.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). The Oxford University Press book Forked: A New Standard for American Dining provides significant coverage of both Vimala Rajendran and her cafe.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
The Oxford University Press book source is clearly a national or international source. The other sources from the regional newspaper The News & Observer and the local television station WRAL-TV also provide significant coverage. There is significant independent journalistic reporting and analysis. That the journalists included quotes from Vimala Rajendran is standard journalistic practice and does not make the sources non-independent.
Cunard (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An argument to keep a local street restuarant that has a human interest side with the continued can of worms (OH! now other stuff exists) that everything in the world should be on Wikipedia. A problem is that even if there are local arguements NOTDIRECTORY states "However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.". There is also the specific #6, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations: "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". NOTADVERTISING states "...so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable.". The "University of North Carolina Press" sponsors the quarterly Southern Cultures: The Special Issue on Food. This publication also includes such things as Bernard Herman on Theodore Peed's Turtle Party and Will Sexton's "Boomtown Rabbits: The Rabbit Market in Chatham County, North Carolina,". This doesn't give a green light to have an article by Courtney Lewis on how the "Case of the Wild Onions" paved the way for Cherokee rights... or other local cultural aspects of southern living, These things are also printed by the University of North Carolina Press. This is twisting the local printing, allowed by an otherwise "regional" publisher, to be Wikilawyered into meaning pretty much all things in the world can have an article. Wikipedia:Notability states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This article is covered by number 2 with "WP:NOTDIRECTORY" and "WP:NOTADVERTISING". Most universities have a press. LSU ("one of the oldest and most prestigious academic publishers in the South") prints "general interest books about Louisiana and the South" including "Foodways". With the evrything in the world deserves a Wikipedia page mentality I can find an LSU printing of many small businesses, some coverage in the local newspapers, even TV news (as well a YouTube), and can have an article on hundreds of local businesses and twist significant coverage to mean everything in the world. I would cover it better because I would want some neutrality or maybe controversy and provide the Heath Department restaurant inspection. We could likely find similar university or college presses across the US and in fact I am sure we can. However, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines: Not everything in the world deserves a page on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Northamerica1000's comments above. I like 42.111.196.105's mention of WP:AUD. = paul2520 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was closed as delete. But, I have decided to relist it an additional time after a brief discussion. So to make this easier in 7 days, here's the big question: Does the singular Oxford Press book's detailed mention of this restaurant along with the routine local coverage meet the requirements of WP:GNG? Keep in mind that, while I saw this argument used several times here, WP:AUD does not give a standard of notability... it gives a standard of being able to determine notability at all. As there is one larger than regional source available, a discussion regarding the notability can happen on the merits of all of the encompassing sourcing. Therefore, I'm allowing a relist for that very purpose.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If anything, I lean deletionist when it comes to businesses, after spending years filtering out spam, but this satisfies WP:N. It's a bit of an unusual topic, half the cafe and half the founder, but the coverage spreads beyond Chapel Hill. I suppose The News and Observer might be considered in the same "region" but it is actually in a completely separate metro area, the Triad, not the Triangle, so it isn't like Greensboro is constantly covering Chapel Hill topics: it has 1.1 million people in the Triad to cover instead. Keep in mind there is a University of NC in both metro areas, UNC and UNCG, so they aren't the same, certainly to those of us that actually live in the Triad or Triangle. Jayaraman's book certainly qualifies and doesn't need further explanation. The book "Southern Cultures" also goes into great detail, so two book citations should be sufficient to pass WP:GNG by themselves. Being a local business, it shouldn't be a shock that most coverage is local, but there is more than adequate other coverage to pass the bar here, and yes, the local coverage matters as well. Google books shows a couple more books have written about the place in varying detail as well, one of which seems to pass WP:SIGCOV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennis Brown: the N&O does not cover the Triad. It covers the Triangle. The Triad's paper is the News & Record. I'm unsure why you are talking about UNC Greensboro: this is a Chapel Hill only restaurant that is literally one of three Indian restaurants on the same block and is the least well established of the three (original research there, but sue me for being a Carolina alum). The UNC press is also not out of Greensboro, but is attached to UNC-CH. My concern here as someone who is very familiar with the area is that we could write an article on just about every restaurant in Chapel Hill using this sourcing: the combination of the university, the journalism school, and there being nothing in the town but bars and restaurants means that this coverage is the norm for most of the non-chain places. That shouldn't be what notability is about. If this closes as keep or no consensus, I'll likely try to get it deleted again in a few months (hopefully after NCORP has been beefed up). This is a local shop that has done a good job of promoting itself using feel good human interest pieces, but it isn't an important restaurant even within the small world of the Triangle. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One good thing that will ultimately be decided is the difference between "scholarly publications", that was the intent of the notability standards, and simple "general interest books" published by such nationwide presses. The University of North Carolina Press, a nonprofit publisher of both scholarly and general-interest books and journals. UNC press as well as many others prints these and UNC acknowledges it. We have to have a determination or, since we all know local newspapers cover local restaurants and this has been discussed above, we will have articles on every such ~~small local garages~~ restaurants covered by these type publications across the US. Sounds good to those living in those areas but is not something for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the coverage is essentially either local or PR, and neither count for notability. The book reference is essentially a mention. I don't seethe content as naïve, I see it as `probably promotional--or possible an naive immitation of promotional. Cute origin stories are not encyclopedic content, but rather the stuff of human interest sections or tabloids. It probably does make sense for us to have greater coverage of restaurants than garages, and it's true we have no fixed standards. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided by other editors above show that this passes WP:N. feminist (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta. T. Canens (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anocht FM

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

Non notable radio station, Found a source on them being live for 5 years and them launching but other than those 2 the rest are forum related or trivial mentions, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta. This article actually misrepresents its subject: it was not a standalone radio station in its own right, but a program that aired on RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta. And that article already mentions it, to boot, so a redirect is appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - or delete. Per Bearcat this is (was?) in effect a programming series run on an existing station. Per this article or this press release (two of very few which would seem to contribute to notability), the subject is (was?) a programming "service dedicated to younger listeners on RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta". In other words a series of radio programs. And not a radio station. As Bearcat notes, the current article appears to misrepresent this. In honesty I don't see enough independent coverage to support WP:GNG. WP:RPRGM is perhaps met. But only in so far as it would support a recommendation to redirect. Rather than one for outright deletion. I'd be inclined to suggest a non-admin closure and a BOLD redirect. (There isn't even any content to merge. As what content is there is misleading at best). Guliolopez (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Nose Freaks Out

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

Can see a GamePower review (https://archive.org/details/GamePower_Ano_2_No._16_1993-10_Nova_Cultural_BR_pt?q="Big+Nose+Freaks+Out") and that's it. Coin945 (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MobyGames keeps a list of 4 reviews for the game - 4 reviews. Those publications should really be enough to pass WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the aforementioned Mobygames reviews are not contemporaneous, and not significant. Fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a list article of the gamemakers games. It seems it wpuld be indie to merge so I favor keeping the article as it has some notability and coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Night Begins to Shine. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B.E.R. (band)

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

Non-notable band with one mention in one article in one reliable source. Rockypedia (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 22:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 22:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 22:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just realized this is a fictional band created on the show "Teen Titans Go". Yet another reason to delete it. Rockypedia (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure being an animated band is a good reason to delete them, otherwise we would have got rid of number-one singles like "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies and "Do the Bartman" by the Simpsons. And they have had a single that has charted on two different Billboard charts,[55] so perhaps if there isn't anything more to say about B.E.R. themselves, their article could be redirected to "The Night Begins to Shine". Richard3120 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to song. Owning to shortness and lack of information, there should certainly not be separate articles for this band and their only song The Night Begins to Shine, even if you could argue both meet notability standards. Redirecting to song seems more sensible, but I'm not certain which is more notable, more common, or more likely to be searched for (although it's probably easier to search for song title). Little or no content to be merged from here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Weighing in with the multiple re-listings. Redirect to (preferably) Teen Titans Go! or The Night Begins to Shine, baring that article also popping up as an AfD. It’s true this “band” charted in the lower 20's with this song from the cartoon, but did anyone read the source from Billboard? It’s chart position reflects 7,000 digital downloads for the single and 3,000 for the album. Pretty feeble to merit a wikipedia article about the fictional band that is used to market it. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to song. Although the song did get a lot of news coverage, the band doesn't even exist and the only songs credited to them were for a TV show. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 02:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). T. Canens (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Murray (field hockey)

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

Almost nine months after the previous AFD, there is still not a single source with even a full sentence about him. KSFT ^(t|c) 21:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on this; while sources are sparce, there are a few reliable examples listed on the Talk Page, such as https://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/more-sport/sean-murray-loss-is-massive-blow-to-lisnagarvey-1-6389859 and https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/hockey/sean-murray-hopes-to-get-the-thumbs-up-30755944.html Okamialvis (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had advocated a 'delete' in the previous AfD. Mainly on WP:TOOSOON grounds. While I am perhaps not swayed to recommend a firm 'keep', I do not feel I can agree with the "not a single sentence since" statement in the nom. As, in the months since (Apr 2017 to Jan 2018), there does seem to have been an increase in some types of coverage. While it may still be slightly TOOSOON, I am shifted to a more neutral stance based on the activity in the intervening months. If the community feels that the article is to be kept, then the scope and references will need to be firmed-up (to avoid a loosely sourced article becoming a magnet for more loosely framed nonsense). Guliolopez (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable international hockey player, with no real shortage of coverage, e.g. [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. --Michig (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluation of new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GripHeavyIndustries

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional tone. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the section of entry on the company's founder where the same material is already covered. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like trivia that the world does not need to know. Company dissolved, should you happen to search for it. I don;t think the content adequately asserts importance, and the published refs do not establish it as an important part of history.198.58.161.137 (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 03:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vejas Kruszewski

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the articles cited in the entry? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Develop or Delete Is there something here? Maybe. Vejas has certainly been recognised within the fashion industry both through the nomination and then being a recipient of the LVMH award. And there is some citations that back this. But, What is this award? Why is it significant? Where is the article? This article might be a good start, but it lacks any depth of coverage. Nottoohackneyed (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Article cites Vogue and Dazed; Globe and Mail also covered his award[61]; and other sources in fashion publications and general Canadian media e.g.[62][63][64] --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indepth coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 03:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:PEOPLE. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Housekeeping. Not much to merge, given the quality (or lack thereof) of the sources. ansh 666 03:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Home management

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

I am proposing this article for deletion because it seems so feeble. It largely consists of lists of household chores to be done at intervals and is very subjective. An article on this subject could be suitable for Wikipedia but in its present form, I don't think this is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superficial stating-the-obvious article ("Weekly chores would include vacuuming, mopping, sweeping, grocery shopping, doing the laundry and washing of toilets" - really?). The sources are weak (two dictionary definitions, two sites that try to sell you domestic help, and a list of chores aimed at people who find it hard to cope). I don't see how any of this is encyclopaedic. As the proposer says, there could possibly be a well-sourced informative article on this topic, but the present effort isn't it and can't be turned into it without starting over. WP:TNT. Neiltonks (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to housekeeping, whose first sentence is "Housekeeping refers to the management of duties and chores involved in the running of a household, such as cleaning, cooking, home maintenance, shopping, laundry and bill pay." Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedic topic. Pichpich (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Housekeeping like household management as these are all the same topic. Andrew D. (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We have little discussion and what appears to be only one good source with the Business Recorder. Borderline case. Sandstein 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Insurance company Limited

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Very likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found and used Financial Times (UK Business newspaper), Business Recorder (a major Pakistani business newspaper) and 1 other reference to edit and redo this article. Given this article was a neglected one and was totally unreferenced since 2011. Removed its promotional material and cleaned up. But the fact remains that this company is traded on the Pakistan Stock Exchange and is one of the major insurers of Pakistan since 1960. Its major clients include General Tyre Pakistan, Attock Refinery and Ghandhara Nissan automotive company. Made it a stub article so it can be further improved and expanded. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this, but they are directory listings and has nothing to do with coverage needed to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Also see WP:LISTED. ~~We only consider a company notable if they are listed on NYSE, not PSX.~~ Störm (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Störm I would prefer NOT to make this a back and forth debate with you. I again read WP:LISTED and the words NYSE ONLY are nowhere to be seen in the WP Section for Publicly traded corporations. We all know Wikipedia management takes pride in being INCLUSIVE and not dismissive. I can not imagine Wikipedia management having that kind of attitude! Let us be reasonable and realistic here and not dismiss the world's now second largest economy China. NYSE ONLY? What happens to French, German, Indian and Japanese Stock Exchanges?

My reference and Stock Price Quote from Financial Times (UK business newspaper) is NOT a "directory listing" as you call it!!! Even Ford Motor Company Stock Price Quote would be a 'two liner' (stock price and a chart) on any financial website. Besides all this, an independent major business newspaper Business Recorder's exclusive article and profile of Universal Insurance company Limited was used as a reference as called for by Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrewal1 Let me elaborate that. There are over 500 companies that are listed on PSX then there are 100 more important companies whom we call KSE100. This company is not even in 'KSE100' so how we can have an article on such company? I've started many new articles about notable Pakistani companies so saying I've double standards is not worthwhile. This article clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There is a company which was once listed on NYSE and is the only company from Pakistan and yet we don't have article about them. Why not spend time on creating NetSol Technologies article, rather wasting time here. Störm (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Störm You most certainly deserve credit for starting many Pakistani company articles and I know you make good faith efforts on Wikipedia like most of us to improve things. But then let us both leave the Wikipedia policy decision-making to the designated staff. I will abide by their policy. Right now, it's clear to me that any major Pakistani company outside of KSE 100 can have a Wikipedia article, if business magazines and major business newspapers have news coverage and articles on the company. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. Of the references quoted, the Business Recorder has no author or journalist credited but otherwise this article appears to meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the other references meet the criteria. Since two sources that meet the criteria are required and only one weak source can be found, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 03:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite efforts to improve, high quality reviews afterwards show this hasn’t been enough to overcome the sourcing deficit. Because of the sock nomination I set the bar for deletion a bit higher than normal but the lack of quality sources was fatal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ross, Jr.

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

~~Fails Unsourced WP:BLP, WP:GNG. -- HindWiki^Connect 07:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 18:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NGOLF. Played in the 1961 US Open but missed the cut. Played in the NCAA Division I Men's Golf Championships but that's true of many useful college golfers. The article says, enigmatically "The first of Robert and Virginia's four children, Bob was viewed from a young age as the most likely heir to his father's golfing legacy." as if this is significant. Article is mainly focused on him as a club professional and as the owner of Boone Valley Golf Club (Augusta, Missouri). In summary, it seems he's not notable enough as a golfer. Nigej (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for golfers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Jim Jamieson come up in wikipedia searches related to Bob Ross, Jr.? Jim was 6 years younger than Bob. Closer contemporaries would be players like Deane Beman and Frank Boynton. Brian Ross (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of the concerns mentioned have been addressed including updates to the article and comments. Are there any other questions? Brian Ross (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bob was a first team All-America (1 of the 12 best college golfers in the USA) at the college level (the best amateur tournaments are at the college level even in the late 50's and early '60's). In college Bob won the Florida Intercollegiate title (other schools included Florida and Florida State) (among other tournaments) and lead Rollins College to it's best finish ever at the NCAA D1 Tournament Finals (prior to Rollins college converting to D2). Bob also won the Ohio State Amateur in 1957 (a field that included Jack Nicklaus (the year after Nicklaus won the 1956 Ohio Open) (as good as Nicklaus was, he never won the Ohio Amateur) and Pete Dye). Bob also played 2 full years on the PGA Tour before changing career paths and making a living as a club pro. A for the significance of the Ross's as a golf family, Bob Sr. was a successful amateur golfer in is own right (accomplishments noted). He was a father or two golfers in the family Bob (who earned a full 4 year scholarship to Rollins) and Richard (who earned a full 4 year scholarship to Florida State U.). Ross, Sr. (of Scottish decent) also defeated Dye (an accomplished amateur golfer) in amateur events on many occasions. Brian Ross (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: briandr (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Sam Sailor 19:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The main issue here is whether he's sufficiently notable to have an article. The only places in Wikipedia where he's mentioned are List of Rollins College alumni and Boone Valley Golf Club (Augusta, Missouri) which don't indicate sufficient notability. As a professional golfer he doesn't seem to have done much. As an amateur he won the 1957 Ohio State Amateur and was an NCAA All-American (although I've been unable to find him here http://collegiategolf.com/component/option,com_honor/Itemid,39/view,default/). I'm from the UK so this college stuff means little to me. Overall he seems a marginal case. If he'd played Walker Cup say, it would be a clear-cut keep. Nigej (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How many places in Wikipedia would you like him to be mentioned to indicate sufficient notability (he was the host professional for 2 USGA championships and founded a club that's hosted 2 more)? He first joined the PGA of America in the early '60's (before a more formal PGA Tour even existed) (the "Tour" back then mostly consisted of PGA members and amateurs on rare occasions) (and been an active member ever since and now a life member having served over 55 years (more than a lifetime for most people) with the PGA), he's received many section awards, received special recognition from Jim Awtrey (former CEO of the PGA of America) and basically dedicated his life to the game. My mistake regarding All American. I believe it was referred to as a college "All Star" (updated in article). He certainly was a leader as an amateur while in college as well having won many college tournaments and guided his team to high finishes at the NCAA D1 Finals on at least a couple occasions (the highest ever for Rollins). He's basically given all of his life to the game of golf and most of it as a professional (and still is for that matter as an instructor). Just because as a player he didn't play walker cup or win the Masters in no way diminishes his contributions to the game either as an amateur or pro, not make him a pro (those that teach the game and accept money for it as defined by the USGA) or accomplished amateur. Briandr (talk contribs) 17:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm certainly not doubting his worthiness as a person. My point is simply that as a pure golfer he's below the level we would normally need. However, it's certainly true that someone can be notable enough by the sum total of their achievements. Anyway it's not my decision. Nigej (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't even really touched on his personal life but it has been a good discussion to help clarify some things with respect to some of his achievements related to the game. Times were surely different in the game of golf back in the mid to late '50's and early 60's (including golf at Rollins (now D2) and on the PGA Tour (now a separate organization from the PGA of America)). So what is the next step? The creation of the Boone Valley Golf Club wikipedia was much easier (at the time only mentioned by a USGA wikipedia)! Brian Ross (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- when I first saw Bob Ross, I was thinking of the guy who used to paint on PBS (no relation I assume). The point here is he doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NGOLF nor does he pass WP:GNG, the sourcing just is not there, a mention in a list in USA Today isn't significant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 15:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and note to closer I have addressed the not sourced reason for deletion at this point. He is more known more for founding a golf course and as a reviewer of golf courses than for his game. Please see the additions I made to the article and the references I have added at this point in the discussion. --RAN (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His golfing career does not meet WP:NGOLF criteria to claim a stand alone article in Wikipedia as no major achievement has found. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 03:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no doubt that he's been successful, but that's not a WP notability criteria. He doesn't meet the notability criteria for golfers and I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage of him that WP:GNG requires. Notability is also not inherited from having met or been associated with well-known figures. Papaursa (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well summed up by Papaursa above. This isn't a judgement on whether or not the subject is a successful or good person, it is simply an assessment that he does not meet the notability required for an encyclopedic article. Ifnord (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to On Tiptoes. Sandstein 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barareh

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

All fancruft, zero sources, and no evidence of notability. Could be redirected to On Tiptoes, though. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to On Tiptoes as that would appear to be the most reasonable approach to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bd2412 T 03:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karan (caste)

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

This article is based on absolutely no evidence except some anecdotal stories that are utterly false and unsubstantiated.

But these kind of articles intend to harm the reputation or show in poor light the esteem of a particular community of peoples and society. Such practices should be banned and considered a libel. These practices are harmful for social cohesiveness and show insensitivity to people belonging to a community or caste.

Please delete these articles to teach a lesson to those who write them to spread controversy and casteism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srijoydas (talk • contribs)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The second half of the nom's rationale is not a valid rationale for deletion. However, the sourcing of this article seems very weak. I couldn't even find the article name in any of the sources by searching them (not sure if this means that it isn't contained in them, just that the search didn't pull it up). Can someone with a greater knowledge of the caste system find some evidence of the existence of this topic? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a complete mess. The nominator has removed a redirect to insert a poor prior version of the article which they immediately put up for discussion here. I suspect the rationale is actually that the article has been a bone of contention for years and they would rather have nothing than have it redirected to what they consider to be the wrong target. They do have a point of sorts: there is an open merge discussion at Talk:Karan_Kayastha#Proposed_merge_with_Karan_(caste) but an anon unilaterally redirected it in October 2017. Basically, the anon usurped process by boldly redirecting an article whose history is very obviously contentious, and then the nominator here has usurped process by reinstating an old version of what, prima facie, would have been a candidate for WP:RFD. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Modern contentions aside (and article shenanigans), there is plenty of sourcing available. e.g. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]. Wikipedia does not censor concepts that appear odious to some modern people. We have articles on Mestizo or Mischling for instance.Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as simple as that. Some of those sources - and plenty more - are not reliable and/or ambiguous. And what is left is basically that they appear to be Karan Kayasthas. Hence the "shenanigans". This AfD should be withdrawn as out of process, the redirect should be rescinded and the merge discussion should take place. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are a regional equivalent to Kayasthas (possible redirect and merge there) or similar but deserving of a separate article is a separate issue. The concept of a Karana caste "has legs" - e.g. these scholar hits - [73]. There are more enough hits on this (in books and in scholar) to see that the concept is notableIcewhiz (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. As previously with caste related AfDs, you're barking up the wrong tree because you do not understand the sources nor, probably, the variant naming conventions. There's a reason someone above mentioned that this could do with some "expert" eyes. You've also just altered the article big time, which makes a nonsense of my first comment here and just adds to the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify that, the merge proposal is already there. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand sources enough to see that they are there for this caste. I restored the article to the state it was prior to the nomination - after looking through the article history see that you reverted based on the additions being made by User:Sadaryohan who is a confirmed sock.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand castes, therefore cannot understand the sources - "this caste", indeed! And I don't understand what you have just done at the article. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please NPA. I returned the article to this version (with the addition of the AfD) - if you disagree with this action, revert me.Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPA? WTF? - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree that the thing should not be deleted. But my point is we should not even be having this discussion here. It's a waste of seven days. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 03:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced = fails WP:V = mandatory deletion. Sandstein 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz. He quotes plenty of sources, and it appears a low-level edit war prevents them from being seen in the article. If it has that many sources, it is notable. Text that people find objectionable should be discussed on the talk page and not at AfD. Ifnord (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with Icewhiz above, I see several books that mention the caste. I don't know much about the system but made some minor grammar changes to improve the article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Art Concret. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Wantz

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

Fails WP:BIO1E. Known for signing the manifesto in Art Concret (which he did since he co-lodged with Jean Hélion). The same, not too long, blurb about him is repeated in multiple sources. Subsequent to 1930 he was a proof reader and active in trade unions - not grounds for notability. Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I oppose the proposal to delete this article on the grounds that his name is included in every single reference book of the many that mention the Art Concret group. In addition, there are fuller details in the Maitron biographical dictionary, to which I do not have a subscription. His name also occurs in histories of Le Monde, so he is not remembered only for his connection with the art manifesto, as was claimed. The strong point I would make in favour of retaining the article is that an encyclopaedia is the natural place to turn for information about a subject so commonly mentioned. It may be that Wantz is not so high profile as textbooks make him seem, but unless there is an article on him, readers will simply assume that WP is falling down on its job and continue to redlink his name in articles where he is mentioned. We're dealing with something of a methodological paradox here. Wantz is notable enough to require an article and it is only on reading about him that one learns that he is not ultimately notable! There are similar instances of this which form a precedent. Daniel Dancer, although the subject of numerous articles when accounts of misers were in vogue, ultimately owes his place in textbooks to mention of those accounts in a novel by Charles Dickens. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dancer is actually not a good example as he meets GNG for coverage of his entire life. It might make sense to have Wantz redirect to Art Concret.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is fine as a stub and it is properly sourced. For readers interested in the history of non-representational art the manifesto is an important document and having some information on Wantz, as one of the signatories, is helpful. Mduvekot (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 03:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Art Concret. Nothing would be lost thereby. bd2412 T 18:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor appears not to have read the Art Concret article, which is mainly about the contents of the review, to which Wantz did not contribute. The information about his subsequent career and political activity would also be off-topic there. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then leave out the parts that are not relevant to Art Concret. Otherwise, delete. bd2412 T 03:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. There is no indication of importance in the article. It does not tell us what this person even did. Was he an artist? Something else? Sandstein 21:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say he was scarcely an artist and worked as a typographer. Mduvekot (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont see a person "set up or arrange or conduct" meetings for notable magazine or was a friend of/associate with some artist make a person notable as notability is not based on association or inherited for relationships does not confer nobility WP:INVALIDBIO. Delete based on WP:A7. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guidelines. Above all WP:GNG but he misses the mark as an artist (he was not one), a journalist (chief proof reader isn't even an editorial position), and politics (not elected to a notable position). Ifnord (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Art Concret#Background, the only subject on which he seems to have any notability, per a simple Google search. On his own, he fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoopfest

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

Seems to be an unconnected synthesis of things that are all called "hoopfest" with no connection between them. I found possible sources for individual hoopfests, but nothing about the concept as a whole. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't think there's a firm topic here. Lots of individual events may call themselves "Hoopfest," but they're not related to each other, and they don't have the same set of rules. Some of these events aren't tournaments at all; for example, several colleges refer to their season tip-off festivities as "Hoopfest" (eg, Illinois State University and Evansville). Zagalejo^^^ 00:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; this is something between WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in how it takes various "Hoopfest" events and try and make a common concept out of them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) !dave 13:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Hits Car

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

Seemingly unnotable band. Sources are unreliable, including facebook page and the band's website. Google search does not come up with anything better. I don't see any coverage really anywhere. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band released an album on a major record label and if you do a deeper search you'll find they were covered on all the notable music sites (ie Allmusic) as well as newspapers and books. The article just needs more attention and less unreliable sources like facebook --I call the big one bitey (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Coverage from Allmusic (bios and reviews) and NME ([74]) arguably enough to suggest sufficient notability, but I'd like to see more. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am probably butchering Wikipedia proper procedure but I absolutely remember this band, and was introduced to it by a friend. Perhaps not the most famous of bands ever, but also not a non-entity. Their music stood out from contemporary mainstream. 153.145.3.197 (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Henley

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable player. Flibirigit (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An overage junior player playing in Jr. B? Definitely fails GNG and NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ashbury, New South Wales. The "keep"s make no sense. Any useful material can be merged from history. Sandstein 21:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashbury, Heritage Conservation Suburb

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

Not really sure what the context is, but it seems to be an unreferenced article about the architecture of Ashbury, New South Wales. Would say to merge but it fails WP:V. Kb.au (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, if it can be adequately sourced I gather an Australian Heritage Conservation Area is similar in concept to a US National Register of Historic Places historic distract, which (when sourced) is considered inherently notable. I find minimal sourcing available on a quick search ([75] and a few trivial mentions), but presumably documentation exists for registry in a national program. If it can be sourced, it should be merged to Ashbury, New South Wales, which should be able to sustain a couple of paragraphs on the broad characteristics of the district. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge From some Googling it appears that the entire suburb has either been heritage listed ([76] - but I can't see a listing in the NSW Heritage Register or the local council's heritage register [77]) or an application to do so has been lodged. However, this can be covered perfectly well in the Ashbury, New South Wales article. Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is appropriate if no one can immediately provide sourcing and develop the article, and keeps the edit history at the redirect, enabling re-creation later if/when sourcing emerges to support a separate article on the historic district. --Doncram (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepTony Rodi (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rodi (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Citations and references added.[reply]

Keep I am resident of Ashbury, can verify Page is a legitimate description of Ashbury architecture. Article is often referenced by the Ashbury community Group for the purposes of stimulating discussion about importance of our heritage in light of conservation challenges facing the suburb.^[1] . 123mattb (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ashbury, New South Wales. This article, as written, is a mess. Judiciously selecting materials for merger will clean that up. bd2412 T 19:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Mitry

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

Doesn't meet the GNG or WP:BIO. No significant coverage in independent sources. The references listed in the article merely cover cases the subject has been involved in as a lawyer, and contain only incidental mention of Mitry. Kb.au (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject does not meet general notability requirements and the page's current reference only cover cases he's worked on. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly important within the circles of lawyers in his field, but not notable in an encyclopedic sense. bd2412 T 18:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan King (Australian filmmaker / actor)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:V. Virtually all the inline references are to primary or self-published sources (ie. IMDb) and I couldn't find any coverage on the subject in reliable independent sources. The few independent references included in the article either don't mention the subject or are only incidental mentions. Kb.au (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots and lots of references to non-reliable sources still do not add up to reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion requests are incorrect, page does not fail Wikipedia Notability, Wikipedia Notability (people) and Wikipedia: Verifiability

Kb.au please keep Wikipedia jargon to a minimum with first time users such as myself. Terms such as WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:V are Wikipedia Jargon and is aggressive, intimidating and unnecessary. As a first time user I was initially completely confused by these abbreviations provided by Kb.au. I'm sure this is the reason Wikipedia have the "no jargon" rule included in their code of conduct in relation to correspondence with experienced users such as Kb.au and first time users like myself.

As a first time user, I also feel a recommendation other than deletion request would have been much more appropriate in this instance (please see supportive information to this below). I have done my upmost to abide by and follow the Wikipedia guidlines, including quoting multiple reliable and independent sources in relation to the page. As a new member of the Wikipedia community, I feel I have been very respectful and attentive to the necessary processes and methods of contributing to Wikipedia.

In regards to notability, the body of work and awards for Alan_King_(Australian_filmmaker_/_actor) is considerably extensive on both a National and International level spanning across Theatre, Television, Narration and Filmmaking.

Issues raised on this thread surrounding verifiability are also not correct.

Wikipedia states " IMDb may not be a reliable source for biographical information." This page does not primarily use IMDb for biographical information it uses IMDb primarily for Film and Television credits. IMDb is the considered the leading International industry database for Film and Television credits. IMDb have thorough and rigorous systems in place to ensure all Television and Film credits are correct.

The article Alan_King_(Australian_filmmaker_/_actor) does not contain any references to non reliable and self published sources. Reliable independent sources are listed extensively throughout the page including well known and reputable Film and Audio publications, Academy Award qualifying Film Festivals and Non-local mainstream Newspapers:

The information provided in relation to the page in many of these sources is extensive and not incidental mentions.

Reliable and independent sources listed and linked (as per Wikipedia stipulations and guidelines for providing source material)throughout the page Alan_King_(Australian_filmmaker_/_actor) include - Cinequest International Film Festival, Inside Film Magazine, Flickerfest International Film Festival, FilmInk Magazine, Herald Sun Newspaper, Moscow International Film Festival],Stage Whispers Magazine, Film Festivals.com, UK Film Review, Micro Filmmaker Magazine, The Newport Beach Film Festival, Femail.com, Audible.com, Sao Paulo International Film Festival and the Audio Publishers Association Of America.

Jas ravalouskis (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps even speedy G11. Even IF notable give it TNT. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written, although I would be fine with a move to draft to give a bit more time for real sources to be resolved into the article. bd2412 T 18:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

^ http://ashburycommunity.org/about-2/

[1] [1]

[McDaniel1970-2] Mcdaniel, R. (1970, June 10). Motivating Students. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/motivating-students/

[RR2017-3] Teacher Practices that Impact Reading Motivation. (2017, April 13). Retrieved April 21, 2017, from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/teacher-practices-impact-reading-motivation

[4] ttp://ashburycommunity.org/about-2/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]