Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 August	9 August >

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 speedy delete per WP:G7. So Why 07:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bear and Idiot Romance

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

Non-notable book lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. PROD removed by article author. reddogsix (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero sourcing available. Non-notable (e) book, by non-notable author, from non-notable publisher. Wikiquote page already deleted. Bunch of content on Commons deleted. Apparently xwiki effort at self promotion. GMG ^talk 17:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. All of 7 Google hits for this self-published work. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clear attempt at self-promotion by self-published author, no claim to notability, no coverage, fails WP:GNG, violates WP:COPYVIO unless written by same author, in which case violates WP:COI. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete blatant COI and self promotion per above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This book clearly fails to meet the standards that are outlined in the general notability guideline. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable book. I don't see how this would any of the speedy critera, so this discussion probably needs to run the full course. Brad v 01:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
can my article be moved into draft space please? I understand the concerns and am willing to address them over time. I am learning about the wiki policies but my screen does not show "save as draft" it only shows "publish". Tonrene
Speedy delete per GreenMeansGo who has provided the necessary and accurate rationale. The page has since been blanked and CSD U1 tagged. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all editors. Also Thanksto Brad v for the encouragement to help me learn. I blanked the page to delete it. Apparently, that doesn't work. Please feel free to delete it. But I would be grateful to get any leads on how to create a draft as opposed to starting with a published page. Do I just leave it in the sandbox? (Tonrene (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Concert for Charlottesville

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

Declined PROD. There is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the event. The article contains a grand total of zero references after the concert, and I couldn't find any others. wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable concert. I think is is too early to establish that the concert did not recive continued coverage as the concert has not yet reached its 1 year anniversary, which is the moment these events are most likely to resurface in the press. I have added one source for this event from July 2018, listing it as part of Ariana Grande's history of polical activism. Emass100 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pretty big benefit concert with A-list lineup, including DMB, Justin Timberlake, Ariana Grande, Pharrell Williams, etc. It doesn't seem appropriate to merge with the Unite the Right rally article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE gives special inclusion criteria for keeping events which fail to meet GNG, and is not a guide listing reasons to delete topics which otherwise pass GNG. The sources cited are extraordinary coverage for a concert. These publications are to a national audience for a small town event, and they explain the event in far more detail than a typical concert would normally be explained, and the sources assign meaning to this beyond what is typical to ascribe to a concert. My guess is that fewer than 1 in 10,000 concerts would get coverage comparable to this. Making a Wikipedia article for such a well covered and unusual event seems aligned with Wikipedia precedent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Les

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

Rapper who does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of charting and in-depth coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:51, 8 August 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K S Bava

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

Non-notable film director with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:DIRECTOR. He has directed 4 films of which only one is notable, and the rest of them are miles away from being anywhere close to notability per WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. (Since no one wants to touch this I am hopping in). The movie director has only 1 movie with its own article. (that movie also has a questionable notability). His Bio has a Lack of WP:SIGCOV hence opting to delete. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

War Kings

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for its own article. Team is not independently notable, anything important is already in the member's individual articles so nothing to merge. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any indepth independent coverage of the team. --GRuban (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability established. Only WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 09:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of brothels in Nevada. Any salvageable content may be merged from the page history. Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bella's Gentlemen's Club

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

Not seeing any real notability, one blog and a source I am unable to check (but appears to be an overview of prostitution in Nevada, and thus not really about the subject). Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed on the page’s talk page, this article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the article has cited two significant secondary sources, Slate magazine and the Elko Daily Free Press, with details concerning the significance of the brother in a legal and historical context.—PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC) [sockpuppet, blocked][reply]

Apart from the blog (which may well fail wp:rs) they all look like trivial mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the Men’s Health interview as well. It’s a significant article. Bella’s does not deserve to be deleted. It’s also a part of the Sex Work Task Force.—PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC) [sockpuppet, blocked][reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The ranch is a significant part of prostitution in Nevada, which has a unique place in American Law. I agree the article needs improvement but the subject meets notability guidelines so deletion is inappropriate. --John B123 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnB123. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This brothel has 14 sources, all of dubious quality. The sources are either self-published (iUniverse book, Esther Hecht's Blog), unreliable (HappyCabbie's review, Thrillist), local press (Elko Daily Free Press, Las Vegas Courtesan), or include Bella's alongside every other brothel ("A Comprehensive Guide to Nevada Brothels"), not demonstrating it stands out from any other brothel in Nevada. Are all brothels in NV notable? There is only one decent national source, Slate, but it consists of a single picture inside the brothel and no mention of it in the article body - it's a passing mention not in-depth. There is no evidence this brothel stands out from any other brothel, it is not a notable brothel. -- GreenC 13:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been a long time when the article was created. 14 references but not even one is significantly establishing the notability. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation by User:John B123 or anyone else. --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[was "Keep"]. It is sourced and is notable as one of few legal brothels in the United States. --Doncram (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no way this should be deleted outright, because it is obvious that it is a valid item in List of brothels in Nevada, and merger to that list-article is available as an alternative to deletion. We are obligated to seek wp:ATDs.
Second, the article has considerably more information than is comfortably merged into the list-article. It is valid for editors of list-articles to split out info to separate articles when the information becomes too much. Here, there is adequate sourcing and the topic is valid as a standalone article, IMHO, too. --Doncram (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should every legal brothel in NV have an article? I'm not aware of a notability guideline for brothels that gives automatic inclusion. The sources for this brothel all problematic as explained above. If legal brothels are notable you shouldn't have trouble producing reliable sources that discuss it in-depth (per WP:GNG) -- that aren't local news, blogs and self-published books. -- GreenC 17:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of legal brothels in Nevada is hugely notable, and, according to the list-article, there are currently just 22 of them; it is very feasible and reasonable to cover all of them in Wikipedia, at least in a list-article, like we do for many types of relatively rare things, e.g. we cover all historic covered bridges and all cobblestone houses. A picture is worth a thousand words; having a separate article allows for more treatment of a place, including presentation of a larger photo than a thumbnail in a list-article (and allows presentation of more photos, though only the one seems available at Commons for this place). --Doncram (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update from "Keep" to "Delete". There really is not substantial value created in this article, and the fact of the creator being a sockpuppet/disruptor with obnoxious content included in the original creation brings me over the edge here. I literally wrote the essay against using wp:TNT, but this is a case where blowing it up, wp:DENYing the disruption, similar to deleting copyvio, and allowing someone else to start over again some other day seems appropriate. I will update wp:TNTTNT for this kind of exception. --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator User:PaleheadedBrushfinch is perma-blocked as a notorious disruptive editor and sock. The article was created about a week ago. -- GreenC 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed true, but I can't see how that is relevant? The article should stand or fall on its own merit, not the reputation of its creator. --John B123 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Argh, disappointing. I see now that it was indeed just recently created, and that in its original form it was not appropriate for the encyclopedia. User:John B123 added infobox and categories and otherwise improved the article into more encyclopedic form (thanks), and GreenC (with mostly negative edits) and I (with just one minor edit) have both also now edited there. --Doncram (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my !vote to "Delete", with apology to User:John B123, whose investment/improvements I do appreciate. Perhaps you could save a copy, and possibly recreate sometime later, especially if you do find better sourcing. And drop many/most of the existing stuff which was indeed stretching it; I was judging it over the margin but it was still marginal. --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Thanks for your kind works, however I'm dismayed that (from your edit summary) sockpuppetry has influenced your decision. --John B123 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, from other experiences I am pretty soured on the effect of sockpuppets and anonymous editors in Wikipedia, who have no accountability and are trolling us, wasting our time one way or another. In the past I would have tried to salvage anything of value, and in general I am an "inclusionist", but nowadays I more strongly prefer to avoid seeming/being a dupe. You're right, I am affected by sockpuppetry, as are we all here in this unnecessary discussion. --Doncram (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The emotive issue of sockpuppetry has been introduced into this article and has influenced people's thinking. As articles should be judged on their own merits, not on the wrongdoings of the creator, this discussion is now pointless. Any consensus reached would be a prime candidate for a WP:DELREVIEW. --John B123 (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Whilst I fully support WP's notability requirements and can't see how the criteria of assessing notability could be improved while still keeping it a relatively simple test, the 'one size fits all' approach does throw up anomalies (as one size solutions often do). Specifically in this case, clients of Nevada tend to fall into two types (in this context). Some go to them almost for bragging rights, eg if Dennis Hof's Love Ranch comes up in conversation they can say "I've been there". Others want to visit a prostitute without anybody knowing and discretion is the most important requirement. The Love ranch and similar establishment court publicity and go out of their way to stage publicity stunts. Others, such as Bella's shy away from being in the public eye as their clientele are after discretion. This makes it easy to establish notability for the love ranch, but difficult to do the same for Bella's. However in regard to the importance they play in prostitution in Nevada there is very little to choose between them, both are nowhere near as important as say the Mustang Ranch, which although meets the notability requirement, on a scale of notability judged by WP standards is a distant second to the Love ranch. --John B123 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Prostitution in Nevada. While I commend John B123 for expanding the article, the sources seem still to be too much about the Nevada sex industry generally and towards the sensationalist / tabloid end. I think a paragraph in the main article (with appropriate sources) should suffice, and may be a sufficient compromise to everyone upthread. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a recreation of the article deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–2019 Hashtag United season. Hut 8.5 21:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018-19 Hashtag United F.C. season

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

Article on a club season for a club playing at the tenth level of the English football pyramid. This clearly fails WP:NSEASONS (see this recent AfD on a club playing at the fifth level). Was prodded, but the prod was removed without a reason being given by an account with 11 edits.

I suspect this AfD may well attract a lot of comments from IPs, SPAs and new/little used accounts (the main article was recently protected due to concerns over editing patterns), so this should be taken into account by the closing admin. Number 5 7 15:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - clearly playing well below the level at which season articles are appropriate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS; possibly Speedy delete as recreation of article previously AfD'd (under 2018–2019 rather than 2018-19). OZOO (t) (c) 15:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 15:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per widespread consensus involving seasons for non-professional teams and nom. Comment as well - if this page gets deleted, we should probably delete Template:Hashtag United F.C. and Template:Hashtag United F.C. seasons, seeing as though this season is the only useful navigational link in them. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have believe this is G4 delete. I tagged for speedy deletion per previous AfD. Govvy (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Govvy/Lugnuts, I hadn't noticed this had been previously created/deleted at a slightly different title. I see someone's G4'd it. Number 5 7 17:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The season of a team playing at counties league level is never likely to be notable and as noted this has effectively been deleted before. Dunarc (talk) 18:41, 8 August 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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography#United Kingdom and Ireland. Bad relist from a non-admin. Pretty clear consensus. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 67 (UK series)

(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

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

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

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

Per WP:NALBUM guidelines these albums are unlikely to grow much beyond their current status, primarily as track listings and so despite their popularity as compilation albums are unlikely to be individually notable. Recommend delete and redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#United Kingdom and Ireland. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#United Kingdom and Ireland. Nowhere near enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources on any of them to show they meet WP:GNG, and no indication they charted on a major chart, simply the niche chart for compilation albums, which doesn't satisfy WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as long established articles on a notable album series. These sell in the hundred thousands and clearly meet inclusion criteria. I’m also confused as to why only a small set of articles have been nominated, when some are still inappropriate redirects. Aiken D 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I was trying to not spam AfD. Being more comprehensive is why I had initially started down the RfC route but went here when that didn't receive support on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - Yes, according to WP:NALBUM, they "may" be notable to whatever extent we see notability in charting on the compilation albums charts. (Downloading music has largely rendered such charts pretty much meaningless.) That said, these articles are pretty much catalogs of track lists: Here's when it was released, when it charted, how many copies it sold, the track list and a link to the primary source for all of the info. Call it a permanent stub or call it a catalog. There is nothing here to allow us to write reasonably detailed, independently sourced articles on these. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all: let's just state the facts here for a moment. Pretty much every one of the 100 (so far) albums in this series has reached no. 1 on both the UK and Irish compilation charts, and has been certified multi-platinum in the UK at least. Using the first album in this AfD as an example, Now 67, here is the proof of it reaching no. 1 on the UK Compilation Chart [1] and on the Irish Compilation Chart [2]. And here is its BPI certification for shipping double platinum (600,000) copies in the UK [3]. So superficially, two national charts and a certification would appear to pass WP:NALBUM. The big issue that I see here is... that's ALL you can say about this album, and almost all the other albums in the series as well. They don't get reviewed (the last one I remember seeing a review for was Now 5, when they were still a novelty), and there is no meaningful text that you can add, because they rarely get discussed individually in detail – the most recent Now 100 has, but that's because apparently 100 is an important number. And the Compilation Chart is not the main chart in either the UK or in Ireland – reaching no. 1 on this chart is no big deal when MP3 playlists and streaming have consigned the compilation album to oblivion in all other cases. In short, these articles are going to remain permastubs, consisting of a track listing, two sub-chart positions, and a certification. If you keep this, you may as well agree that every other compilation album ever released (not just the Now records) also passes WP:NALBUM and deserves its own article, because they almost certainly will have placings on two national compilation charts and a UK certification as well. Should we keep articles for the individual albums, despite the fact it's a near certainty they will remain forever essentially a track listing with no article text, and never grow beyond what's already there? I just think the chart positions and certifications, which is the only important and verifiable information, can be adequately and better covered in a table on the Now That's What I Call Music! discography page. Richard3120 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. user:Richard3120 has very eloquently explained why redirection is the right course of action. I'd just like to throw in a reminder that the guidelines very explicitly state "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion." As editors we need to exercise some judgment and not just rotely apply notability criteria and declare that there should be an article. -- Whpq (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. The key element to WP:NALBUMS is not the list of criteria which MAY make the album notable but the statement that the album has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Charting, in and of itself, is not "significant coverage" but just an indication that a lot of people bought these albums but no one is actually talking about these releases. Note that when I started redirecting these, it was AFTER I updated the discography for the UK section with the only sourced info for most of these (the tracklisting from the official Now! website, the chart position, and whatever certification it may have received). The individual pages didn't offer anything else besides this info so I felt the redirects were appropriate and following the precedent set by the recent AfD results for Now 51 and Now 52. Even if there is some additional minimal coverage elsewhere (such as the milestone of reaching 100 volumes), it can be placed in the Now That's What I Call Music! main article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Richard3120 is correct in asserting that these individual NOW articles will probably never progress much beyond a tracklist, since as they are compilations they have no production information or reviews like studio albums. However, I think the point of these articles' value to this encyclopedia has been missed, namely that the NOW series offers a curated benchmark of the most popular music of a particular frame of time (due to the series' longevity and the consistency of their release schedule, as well as their popularity as evidenced by their consistent No 1 chart position). Each individual album article features links to the songs and artists who were considered popular enough for inclusion on the album within that timeframe, many of whom appear only once or twice in the charts before disappearing. In this way, their intrinsic usefulness to the encyclopedia is more akin to that of a WP:LIST. Bob talk 19:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Satisfy NALBUM due to the spectacular level of sales and LISTN per the arguments of Bob Castle above. James500 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per Richard3120. @James500 and Bob Castle: That the data is useful doesn't indicate notability, and since the track lists are arbitrarily curated by Sony/Universal WP:LISTN can't really be used as justification for their existence. The track listings can be stored on Wikidata (although this would require the creation of new items for some of the songs if they're different to the originals); they qualify for Wikidata notability because it is verifiable that all of these albums exist and they all have identifiers in external databases. Jc86035 (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as they're fairly useless unless there is more significant coverage per article. The songs individually are all notable since it's basically a top-40 compilation but a bazillion tracklistings are utterly worthless. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all Great points so far that I'd, frankly, never given much thought to. Allowing all of these "NOW (xx)!" albums to have their own article opens up a rather large can of worms, in my opinion. Strikerforce^Talk 19:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why this was relisted. There appears to be a consensus to redirect all. Strikerforce^Talk 21:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Striker here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:01, 15 August 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. Michig (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural organization

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

Devoid of useful content or sources. Rathfelder (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Agricultural organizations? which exists. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say it is a legitimate article topic, but that currently it is useless, acting as a form of unwarranted WP:CONTENTFORK. As noted there are plenty of them, and a good article could be written on it, but it seems wrong atm. (Re)Write would be preferable. Soft delete would be preferred Nosebagbear (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see that an article about agricultural organisations as a whole, across the world, would be very useful. Rathfelder (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's certainly more to say about this topic than a dictdef; the volume of articles in the category should demonstrate notability of the concept. If there's a plausible redirect target, that would be a reasonable editorial replacement for this stub. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a concept. Its just a label. There are myriads of different kinds of agricultural organisations.Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is only three sentences along and has no references. I am inclined to agree with User: Fred Bauder that all information conveyed by this brief article could be conveyed by the category called "Agricultural organizations". Vorbee (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content, which tells the reader hardly anything that they couldn't have guessed from the title. If the article is significantly improved, I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete – WP is not a dictionary. would support redirect to the American Farm Bureau Federation. Redditaddict6 9 19:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. AFD created by a sock and clearly notable, so NACing per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Jalaeipour

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

"He received his bachelor and masters’ degrees in sociology at the University of Tehran with a privileged ranking in the year 1366 to 1371." However, he is claimed to be alive. Furthermore, almost all the content in the article is unsourced. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs curiosity I'm not weighing in at this point on the AFD itself but the years are Iranian (I'm not sure of the exact name of this specific calendar) so it was likely some time in the 1900's. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was roughly 1945. So it's totally reasonable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissymad I didn't ever expect to learn about Iranian years on Wikipedia, thank you for explaining this to me, makes more sense now. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep He was the governor of Mahabad in the 1980's, so I'd think that alone satisfies at least WP:NPOL and published several of the top reformist papers. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:41, 8 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard S. Kirby

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

I see no basis for notability. The best I find is a discussion on a futurist message board after his death, and he got an obituary in his hometown newspaper making elaborate claims (link now dead), plus one in a larger regional paper (which I only find on copyvio sites so I won't link) that says almost nothing about him except personal details - birth, death, occupation, family, services. Marked for want of notability since 2009. It fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR. Claimed president of a non-accredited private 'college' that seems non-notable and would not contribute to his notability. There may be something out there I didn't find amidst all the other people of the same name, but I am not seeing anything that would merit coverage on Wikipedia. Essentially an orphan - the only pages pointing here are redirects and lists. Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't been able to find anything to suggest that he qualifies under any notability guideline. The books he wrote do not appear to be notable, failing WP:AUTHOR, and there does not appear to be anything significant about the Kepler Academy he was president of, failing WP:NACADEMIC. Also failing WP:GNG in the sources. Hzh (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This weasel language filled hagiography does not show any notability as we see it. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian and have attended classes at the General Seminary. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 15 August 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. Redirecting this would require first sorting out whether the redirect is factually correct. Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacle Island, Warwick, Bermuda

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Article provides no further information except for the fact that it exists. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything which would help expand the article. Doesn't help there's a more popular Spectacle Island near Boston, Massachusetts. SportingFlyer talk 01:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Likely Delete. There are two Spectacle Islands, neither in Warwick Parish.[4][5] The one in Southampton Parish -- unmarked on GMaps for some reason -- helps form Jew's Bay.[6][7] The one in Paget Parish -- "Specacle Island" on Gmaps -- forms part of the boundary of Hamilton Harbour,[8] and was allegedly the birthplace of Jenaya Wade-Fray [9] Sources disagree which used to be known as Hunt's Island, the location of the 1844 Bermuda Native Yacht Club, Bermuda's first yacht club[10][11] but it appears likely that the Southampton one is the right one. Warwick Parish is more proximate to the Southampton one, but the coordinates presented are for the Paget one. Worse, White's Island also used to be known as Hunt's Island (so sources referring to Hunt's can't be used unthinkingly). I wouldn't object to redirection to and capsule coverage at List of islands of Bermuda, if unimpeachable sources were to show that at one time one of these islands were administratively in Warwick, but coverage of the minor islands at that article would require a bunch of work to turn into a more fully-featured list or even more a Fully Featured List. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, probably to List of islands of Bermuda#Spectacle Island, Warwick, its named/anchored row in the fine new table in the list-article, well on its way to becoming Fully Featured. :) An island is a geographic feature, so could arguably be presumed notable, but we don't need a separate article for each one unless/until there is more to say. Note the row includes coordinates from the article, which definitely do point to an island in Bermuda; I am assuming this is a real island, not a fraud, though the row's description column could be tagged as needing source or whatever. ~~I don't know how to see parish boundaries (like MapQuest shows counties in the U.S.).~~’’map now at Talk of list-article supports this location being in Warwick.’m Locations can be seen in linked GeoGroup maps. Help further developing the excelllent table would be appreciated. --Doncram (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Assuming this AFD closes "Redirect", following this example it would be appropriate IMHO to redirect Theta Island, Bermuda to its row, List of islands of Bermuda#Theta Island, and so on for more islands currently having minimalistic articles, without requiring another AFD. --Doncram (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: It is simply better for readers about any of these islands to arrive at the row in the list-article, so that they can see relative information and have perspective about the island of their primary interest, including by seeing it on a map of all of them. An island should be split out to a separate article only if absolutely necessary. --Doncram (talk) 02:51, 15 August 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) 13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Arion

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything to support GNG. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:18, 15 August 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. Overall consensus, keeping in mind the strengths of the arguments herein, is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Curry Jr.

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Likely notable. See [12], [13], [14] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski two of those are about his father and the third just confirms he exists. MPJ-DK 22:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Everything I am finding is related to Fred Curry (wrestler). No reason why these limited highlight's couldn't be included on his fathers page. He is already mentioned there. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the significant independent coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. I would suggest a merge or redirect to Fred Curry (wrestler) would be better. I'm not sure that article has the coverage to be notable, at least not based on the article's current sources, but it's a better article than the one on his son. There's no indication that Junior meets any notability criteria required for an individual article. Papaursa (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: During his heyday, the elder Fred Curry was a pushed wrestler in what was one of the top promotions in the United States at the time. I agree that the sources in that article are basically bullshit. Unfortunately, logic doesn't seem to matter in these discussions about half the time, only whether we're catering to the usual web-fueled 21st-century mindset. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to find significant third-party coverage of Fred Curry Jr. - not even in unreliable sources. MPJ-DK 01:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - likely notable. - Scarpy (talk)
Delete. I see two !votes that he's "likely notable" -- without a single reliable source in he article to show for it. He does not get a free article merely because his dad was notable. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG and notability not inherited. A redirect to his dad would be fine, too. Nikki♥311 09:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect Doesn't meet the GNG or the notability standards for entertainers. A redirect to his father would be OK, but his notability is also questionable. Sandals1 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty Vortekz

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cant find anything that isnt routine coverage - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am not an expert on wrestling and therefore might have missed something, I'm unable to find coverage that isn't routine in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde (talk) 13:10, 16 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Arion

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything to support notability. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am not an expert on professional wrestling, I'm unable to find substantive, ie non-routine, coverage in independent reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wavell Starr

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found [15] and [16] but unsure if its enough for GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Galatz beat me to it. I find it a little shaky that someone who was in this many dark matches doesn't meet GNG requirements. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Minor league wrestler and lacks the coverage to meet the GNG. The two sources mentioned by Galatz are the same article, which was local coverage to begin with.Sandals1 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce D. Jette

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

PROD challenged as "asserting notability", which is not in my view, a valid reason to remove a PROD since the claim was not that it didn't assert notability, but that he wasn't notable and that it was spam.

Non-notable mid-level political appointee: sub-cabinet, so not inherently notable, and the rest of the coverage is just your standard PR that is normal with any appointment, and routine coverage that isn't in-depth to him, but is brief and discusses what he does in his official capacity. Additionally, notability really doesn't matter here as it is likely a terms of use violation as undeclared paid editing, meaning there is no right for it to even be on the encyclopedia and that additionally it is excluded under local policy: WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was the one who removed the prod and I need to see some evidence that there is paid editing involved. Let's say, for the sake of argument that there is, it can be cleaned up because he is a notable figure. Definitely meets GNG with plenty of sources ranging from this NYT article to a Foreign Policy profile toa FedScoop artiicle, not to mention his Army biography. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at the sourcing you provided: the NYT article is quotes and contains no substantial coverage about him. Being quoted in the NYT is not indicative of notability. The next two are simply routine announcements of nominations for a sub-cabinet office. Foreign Policy is a better source than Fed Scoop, but I would count Fed Scoop on the level of typical trade mags, the difference being that it's industry is the federal government of the United States. Finally, you can't seriously think that his Army biography counts for notability: it isn't independent as it is produced by his employer. I have had multiple of those published by my employers over the years. I'm sure as hell not notable.
  Finally, the GNG doesn't matter as WP:N makes WP:NOTSPAM equal to the GNG, and something must pass both to get an article. This was created in violation of the TOU, the article history shows it clearly to be created for the intent of promotion, and it is simply a resume of a sub-cabinet official. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't counting his Army biography for the purposes of notability, perhaps that was a bit unclear, I was simply stating it provided biographical info. I really don't think NOTSPAM applies, the article as written looks like a typical politician bio. Jette is not just notable for his most recent post, he also received notability for inventing the packbot which saved lives in Iraq. There are more articles on him, for instance DefenseNews interview and this LA Times piece. As I've said before, any paid editing claims need to be substantiated, and the article can be cleaned up anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - LA Times isn’t about him, but his invention. Interviews are primary sources and don’t establish notability. Cleaning up an article created in violation of our terms of use so they get more value out of it rather than deleting it actively harms this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is rarely called upon to do so, but occasionally, WP:NOT trumps WP:V; this is a classic example. As someone not a million miles away might say, please wait until someone with no COI decides [it's] notable and writes the article; although as the nom points out, the article subject is a middle-ranking politician, and the career trajectory would need to increase proportionately to pass WP:NPOL, as the coverage is currently a dearth of persistent or in-depth sourcing. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no problem with in-depth sourcing. I have no conflict of interest here (and it's never been proven that there was paid editing FYI) and I could write the article, but that seems kinda ridiculous given the effort here already. He is also an inventor and businessman besides a politician, and there are definitely enough sources here to write a decent article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eesh. There's plenty of sources available, but I don't see any which really grant notability. The best ones are WP:ROUTINE announcements of his promotion. SportingFlyer talk 00:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as inventor of the PackBot. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:TonyBallioni, Note what the Los Angeles Times article cited above actually says: [17] "Jette, who has a doctoral degree from MIT, became a legend in Afghanistan when he suggested that the Army use robots instead of soldiers to search caves for Taliban fighters.When commanders told him it would take months or years to build a robot program, Jette said he could do it in 45 days with off-the-shelf technology, and then did it in fewer."] This is WP:SIGCOV, however brief.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and, basically, Bearian. Yes, he's a midrange political appointee, which often isn't enough. But he actually did something notable in that office, the packbot.CBS News That's a big enough deal to be worth an article. --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 08:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His position is not one that would automatically qualify him for an article, but the references seem to me to be adequate to meet GNG, documenting in high-level Reliable Sources several out-of-the-ordinary things he has done. BTW The article's history is a godawful mess - originally written by someone whom TonyBalioni blocked for undeclared paid editing, then completely rewritten by an IP who said they had been “tasked” to scrub the page and use his Department of the Army official bio; that version was actually a copyvio, being copy/pasted from several sources [18][19], but no-one seems to have noticed that at the time. That rewrite was reversed, so what we now see is pretty much the Biografix version. Even if it was "commissioned spam" as described in the PROD rationale, I believe he meets our notability criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Electric Tour

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. --wooden superman 13:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't pass NTOUR which suggests notability be provided in terms of "might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms". Coverage provided beforehand (and it certainly exists) is purely ROUTINE, and since the reason for cancellation wasn't of particular note it is both routine and fails LASTING. As it is cancelled, presumably additional sources won't be created. Since we are caught between 2 redirect targets that are equally legitimate, I feel deletion is the only option. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One2many

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

Contested prod. Sources used either barely mention or do not mention the subject at all. Sources available seem to be entirely passing mention, press releases, and official or generic unreliable websites. Likely conflict of interest/advertising. GMG ^talk 13:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of references appear to consist of press releases and sales announcements, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:03, 15 August 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. Vanamonde (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Sussman

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

Non-notable announcer. I could not locate any reliable sources to indicate notability. Tinton5 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. He is now a tennis coach, but if he was notable before as an announcer and executive, then "once notable, always notable" applies. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being head tennis coach at even the top ranked colleges does not make one notable, Marist College even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. Per WP:WHYN, significant coverage is needed "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." This is not encyclopedic enough to WP:IAR and keep an article that will never be more useful than a stub with past stints listed and quotes more fitting for Wikiquote.—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tight Screw

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. The Article is "media speculation" about a supposedly military operation in 2012 that failed to get the necessary coverage it needs to pass WP:GNG other than news hit. Army denies any such operation.[20] The keep vote in the last 3 AfD were too optimistic with the news hits and focussed on WP:FUTURE and Nominator issues. But come 2018 and even after 6 years since last Afd was closed there is no coverage or content other than passing mentions to merit an article. (Afd1 was closed as No consensus and Afd2 and 3 were Non admin closures)--DBig Xray 13:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not to be confused with Operation Zarb-e-Azb that started in 2014. DBig Xray 12:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DBig Xray 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. DBig Xray 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found some additional references. [21] [22] [23] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Forums blogs or unconfirmed Media speculations as listed above are not counted as valid refs.--DBig Xray 13:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article already has some good references. It would be helpful if someone could search in Urdu and the other languages of Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate policy based discussion. Pakistan Speaks English and Urdu, so sources If exist are not hard. There is lack of detailed coverage hence fails WP:NOTNEWS I am open to withdrawing if we can have consensus.--DBig Xray 13:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This has the feel of an article about a rumour. It is not helped by having a series of blank sections for successive years, which suggests that the editor creating it expected to have a series of operations to report on, but never completed it. I recommend deletion, without prejudice to re-creation if there is an article worth creating. I note the first 3 AFDs were in 2012 and 2013, when people thought something might be happening. That lack of anything being added since, strongly suggests that nothing was. Is there anything in the Urdu WP? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider salting. How did this get through the first AfD discussion? Entirely speculative, not enough coverage that meets RS. NOTNEWS applies, in my view. Strikerforce^Talk 18:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, with User:Strikerforce and Peterkingiron older AfDs are perhaps the lab specimen examples of why arguments based on WP:FUTURE with "current news hits of speculative reporting" as sources should be avoided like the plague at AfDs.--DBig Xray 19:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been real, it would have been significant, but we could not know that at the time: it then looked real. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like a more solid consensus first before overturning the results of the earlier AfDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no verifiable evidence except of speculation and the military denying it ever happened. No prejudice to recreation if any verifiable information surfaces. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article: a secretive joint military operation which the Pakistan military had claimed they were going to launch. WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. WP:NOTRUMOUR: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bang that fizzled. To quote from the first AFD, "We should wait for now to see if the operation gets more coverage". Well, it didn't. --GRuban (talk) 12:06, 23 August 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 Mystery Case Files. Consensus favors a redirect at this time, and the delete !vote does not object to a redirect. I would suggest that WP:ATD-R favors the redirect as well. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 00:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Case Files: Madame Fate

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

Other than simple listings, press releases, blogs, and trivial mentions, no in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per previous AFD. --Izno (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see WP:RS coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: There's no substantive coverage that I'm able to find here, should redirect to Mystery Case Files. Nomader (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Adimefe

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

Author/host/promoter of insufficient notability. Lots of incidental mentions, self-promotion, little dribs and drabs, and amateur blog write-ups. I get that it is difficult to make big media splashes as a creative guy in Nigeria, but a certain level of in-depth coverage IS required for a WP article, and this doesn't meet the bar. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looked pretty hard, couldn't find significant coverage. Would be happy to be proven wrong with some links, but my searches turned up nothing. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:40, 9 August 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expedition Happiness

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

This purports to be an article about a film, but none of the references given mention the film. Here is mention of the film at IMDB. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 8 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olatorera Oniru

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

Page created by confirmed sockpuppet. Claims for significance are working for Fortune 500 companies and for "dressmeoutlet.com" which is an ecommerce site that she created (wikipedia article was also created for dressmeoutlet.com and was deleted as non-significant".

She has a mention on the Forbes website via their self-publishing feature. If you look at the authors contributions on the Forbes site, they are all poor-quality articles written in flowery language.

Awards are suspect, but I welcome discussion. PabloMartinez (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; nn as either a "business mogul" nor a "development speaker". Bio-spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of world three-cushion billiards champions

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

Article doesn't provide sufficient context for the tournament at hand. There is an article at UMB World Three-cushion Championship, which lists championships, but I am unsure how this is related to that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Redirect and Merge~~ Meets WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. Article can and should be expanded, but WP:Deletion is a Draconian and unwarranted result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UMB World Three-cushion Championship which has a full list of the official world champions. Allow recreation of this separate list if necesary to include pre-UMB champions, but no reason at the moment to keep the current highly inadequate list instead of sending people to the much better UMB article. Fram (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, the deletion prospect article, has sourced information regarding winners that are different from the target article. I have no idea if this is the same tournament at this stage. For instance, 1931 has Arthur Thurnblad winning, but the target has Enrique Miró winning (also sourced). 54 is listed as being won by Harold Worst, but the target has no such tournament existing. It's rather confusing, but as the article has no context, it's impossible to know what it is referring to. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE failure. Context can be added; that's just basic MOS:LEAD work. The key problem with the merge idea is that the list is inclusive of non-UMB titles. Now that we have sectional transclusion, we can actually make the UMB and BWCA lists be complete and appear in different articles as-needed, along with their citations. Another problem with merging this article out of existence or simply deleting it is that it would eliminate the encyclopedically useful comparison/contrast of different (BWCA and UMB) claimants to world-championship titles in the same year. This article isn't weird or faulty in any conceptual way, but standard operating procedure. Just needs some work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning of SMcCandlish He thought it through and apparently know what he is talking about. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Relist it. Consensus was clear already, so relisting was unneeded. But I welcome additional comments and commentators. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kapya John Kaoma

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. References are brief mentions, list of articles created by individual, and advertising. reddogsix (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that "The word 'notable' is used on Wikipedia to mean that independent reliable sources have taken notice of the subject." How is this not the case for this entry? There are a number of "independent reliable sources" cited. Chip.berlet (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chip.berlet: To break down the sources:

This one is just a video posted by him.
This isn't even a source, it's just a list of search results that only proves that he has written articles. It's tantamount to linking to Google search results. You could do a search for my name on Roughstock.com, a country music site that I used to write for, and it'd turn up everything I've written there but it wouldn't assert me as notable.
This source is just a resume, which is not a reliable source at all.

The other links posted are mostly things he has written by himself, which are primary sources. Things that would be reputable include newspaper, magazine, journal, or reputable website articles that are specifically and extensively about him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "research-associates" cited on the Boston University page site is not in any way connected to "Political Research Associates." Those are separate appointments for Rev. Kaoma. Different institutions in different cities.
When legitimate independant publishers print a book by Rev. Kaoma, this is not an unreferenced source nor self-promotion by Rev. Kaoma.
Political Research Associates has been recognized as a "reputable"publisher of website articles and print publications--this after tedious Arbcom struggles.
The video in which Rev. Kaoma appears was not made by nor posted by him. It is a page published by the London Guardian called DocuBeat which covers documentaries. According to the Guardian :

  "Uganda's president Yoweri Museveni has approved a law that will see people convicted of homosexuality in Uganda jailed for life. In these extracts from director Roger Ross Williams' documentary God Loves Uganda, undercover filming by a Boston-based Anglican priest, Kapya Kaoma, shows how anti-gay evangelical campaigners from the United States have been influential in the debate, pushing Uganda to pass measures that would be unthinkable in the US."Chip.berlet (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- @Chip.berlet:: The first source is still just a video of him talking, which is not independent of him. The books published by him are still primary sources since he wrote them. The Political Research link still isn't valid since it only proves that he's written articles. It's not an article about him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a clear violation of NPOV rules. It is also one of the worst articles in trying to create a pan-African ideal I have seen on a person in Afirca. It engages in totally violating NPOV language, and is clearly written with a speccific promotional goal. That being said, the article is also totally devoid of reliable secondary sources. Which probably heavily relates to it being essentially a platform to use Kaoma to attack the actions of various people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I'm surprised that anyone would want to delete this guy's article. He is a major commentator on African issues and have appeared on numerous UK TV programmes over the years on issues relating to Africa including BBC, ITV and Channel 4. I have examined the sources cited and virtually all of them comes from reliable sources including the Guardian video [24] who sourced it from Docubeat - a non-fiction and news oriented organisation affiliated with the Guardian, Huntington Post and El Pais - all of which are reliable sources. These media houses have strong editorial practices. They would not add anything on their websites without following due editorial process. Even the bios and writings of this person from other reliable sources such as the Political Research Associates [25], the Center for Global Christianity and Mission at Boston University (School of Theology) [26] and Huntington Post [27] all passes RS. The Washington Post article [28] about about his life and work also passes RS. As regards to some of his writings, it is irrelevant who authored them provided they are in reliable and veritable sources as per our policies here, and all of them passes RS. We cannot start changing the rules willi nilli just because we don't want a particular type of article here. This person passes WP:GNG or at the very least, WP:BASIC. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Going back to the nomination, "...individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. References are brief mentions, list of articles created by individual, and advertising." I am not sure how one can equate the source of the references with the substance of the reference. No one is changing the rules, I see only an application of them. Ten Pound Hammer has done a good job of specifically giving examples of the inadequacy of the references. reddogsix (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I refer you to my !vote above. There is no advertising in the sources I've cited. I haven't even include his own website. There is an in-depth coverage about his life and work in the sources cited. What exactly did you want the sources to say that would have satisfied you? You can always take that out with the sources if you feel they have not reported the subject to your liking. As for TenPoundHammer, he has been known for making disingenuous and dubious nominations. Must I remind you about this [29] and this case against him? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Senegambianamestudy (talk · contribs) is undergoing WP:TEND because they keep blowing up the Wikipedia talk: section of this AFD, saying over and over and over again that the sources are good because they're good. I also find it ridiculous that the user is trying to drag my name through the mud when it was recently decided to loosen my XFD restrictions. To @Senegambianamestudy: -- @Reddogsix: has already explained that the "coverage" which you are claiming is, quote, "brief quotes or single line references - far from what is needed to support inclusion." and your solution was to slather the article with even more passing mentions and blurbs. To wit, as of this revision of the article:

Sources 1 through 14, except for 10, were all published by the source himself. That makes them primary sources, which on their own are not sufficient for notability.
Source 10, as I said earlier, is not what we would consider a "source". It's just a directory listings of articles published by him -- which again, is still a primary source since it consists of content made by the subject himself.
Source 15 just quotes Kapya in a single line on an article that otherwise has nothing to do with Kapya himself. I was quoted in a newspaper article about a local mall. The newspaper article in question confers notability to the mall, certainly, but not to me.
Source 16 is a transcript of a Rachel Maddow show, in which the subject is only shown briefly in a video clip.
Source 17 quotes him passingly in The Economist.

I could go further down each source, but you, @Senegambianamestudy:, seem to be missing the point. We're not doubting that he exists. We're not doubting that he's doing good. But mere name-drops, passing mentions, a single line of being quoted here and there -- none of those is significant coverage. They're just name-drops and quote-mining. Do you have any articles that are exclusively or largely about him and only him? That is the kind of coverage desired. We are not "changing the rules" in an attempt to keep your article out -- we are explaining to you how your sources are only trivial passing mentions, yet you are just covering your ears and screaming "BUT HE'S NOTABLE! THE SOURCES ARE FINE!" despite the deck clearly being stacked against you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is dragging your name through the mud. No one is undergoing tendentious editing. I simply provided the link to your indefinite topic ban. Quote: "TenPoundHammer is indefinitely topic-banned from all deletion activities, broadly construed." Anyway let's not derail this AfD any further. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have been much more impressed if @Senegambianamestudy had addressed the comments specifically about the quality of references (the items relevant to the AfD) instead of what amounts to probably less than 2% of the comment. None of that 2% has any bearing on the AfD. For goodness sake, focus on saving the article. TPH asks, " Do you have any articles that are exclusively or largely about him and only him?" Provide that and it should help save the article. reddogsix (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I suggest other Wikipedia editors do a Google search for "Kapya John Kaoma" and "Kapya Kaoma" in the "books" and "news" sections to see how the calls for deleting this page lack substance.Chip.berlet (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Provide them in the article (remember Wikipedia is requires ..."in-depth, non-trivial sources...") and it will help insure the article survives the AfD. Relying on someone else to do the work may not move this discussion in a positive direction. You have the burden to provide the substance to allow the article to survive the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But when I pointed out on this discussion page several egregious factual errors by critics of the page for Kapya John Kaoma, my post here on this page was deleted. What's that about? If I make additions to the page for Kapya John Kaoma are they just going to be deleted without comment as well? Do I have to visit this discussion page every day to make sure critics of the page for Kapya John Kaoma are not just deleting what I post here?Chip.berlet (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a WP:diff to the deletion to which you refer? That is a serious accusation, and it needs evidence. I can't see any such deletion of any of your posts. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Chip.berlet </sigh> Do you think that by creating an ad hominem argument you will bolster your justification to keep and that it will eliminate my comment. If there has been a removal of substance, then prove it - not formatting or erroneous text, but text of substance.

Once more, provide the references in the article (remember Wikipedia is requires ..."in-depth, non-trivial sources...") and it will help insure the article survives the AfD. Relying on someone else to do the work may not move this discussion in a positive direction. You have the burden to provide the substance to allow the article to survive the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question - And what am I supposed to do when some of the evidence for delisting that page discussed here on this talk page is demonstrably false, and when I point that out my comments showing the criticisms are false are deleted? So on Wikipedia false assertions are protected but pointing out the false "evidence" is to be sanctioned? I have been to Arbcom on this sort of complaint with the LaRouchites. This is a major flaw of the system here on Wikipedia. Tell me what I should do when false "evidence" is posted that a grade school student can fact check? This is a serious question. Chip.berlet (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "...my comments showing the criticisms are false are deleted?" Once again, "if there has been a removal of substance, then prove it - not formatting or erroneous text, but text of substance." reddogsix (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that WP:NPROF#1 is met; The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He seems to be a leading expert on LGBT issues in Zambia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the "reliable sources" only vaguely and passingly mention him? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless citations are added to the article to establish that he's notable. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I got 5 hits for "John Kaoma" on Google/News, [30][31][32][33] are texts by him, that is of no use in this discussion. [34] mentions his name in passing, and that doesn't help either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "Kapya Kaoma" would be a better search. Will look some more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [35] (WaPo) isn't enough in itself, but it helps the case for keep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly mentioned and quoted in reliable sources, but that's not what we're looking for. Found these [36][37][38] but IMO they don't push him over the WP:GNG line, I'm sorry to say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The best of the reliable sources in the article and brought forward in this debate, taken as a whole, are sufficient to establish notabilty. I draw a different conclusion than Gråbergs Gråa Sång from the three sources immediately above. I consider those sources good evidence of notability, when evaluated with the other sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree there is now sufficient evidence with the three extra sources above for WP:GNG to be passed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a reasonably strong case for passing WP:ACADEMIC guidelines, in that Kaoma is a prominent figure in his area of research and activism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 19 August 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) 13:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Oulds

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

Notable only for being Director of the Bruges Group, which has its own article. Any significant press mentions appear to be when he is speaking on behalf of that organisation, and I believe the Bruges Group article covers this appropriately.

His career as a journalist and author is not notable. As a politician, it is not notable in itself to be a councillor or cabinet member in a local authority, nor is it notable to be a prospective parliamentary candidate. Being a standard bearer for the RBL certainly is not notable. Shritwod (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article hands him an automatic "inherently notable" freebie just because he exists, but the sourcing isn't cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG: it's far too dependent on primary sources rather than reliable ones — a person is not notable as a company director just because the fact can technically be referenced to the company's own self-published website about itself, and neither is he notable as a writer just because the fact that he wrote a book can be metareferenced to itself — but the few sources which are actually reliable ones just make him a WP:BLP1E rather than a ten-year test passing topic of enduring permanent notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for the books, and found almost no citations, or press coverage, fails WP:AUTHOR. His political career is minor and locak, and he fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition, reasonable arguments. Primefac (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Haud Al-Marsoud Hospital

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

Fails WP:NHOSPITALS and reads like a directory. Could not find sourcing outside the area. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The history narrates a pile of nonsensical trivial facts about the hospital that is not encyclopaedic in any sense. And none of the reference given and available are solid at all. EROS ^message 15:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Self-Titled Tour (Dua Lipa)

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Only routine coverage. --wooden superman 08:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NTOUR. It appears to be a robust article but it is almost entirely fancruft about dates and set lists, and all media sources about the tour are merely announcements of upcoming shows, with no news about any particular notable show or notability for the tour as an entity in itself. The tour's existence can be mentioned briefly at the respective album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:16, 12 August 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 08:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bishop (artist)

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

Unsourced and fails WP:PORNBIO. Searching brings up a lot of people with the same name. » Shadowowl | talk 10:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No inline sources for a bio at all. Plus, there is a slight promotional tone to the article. I don't see it anywhere near WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. That being said, per nominator's comment, searching brings up a lot of people with the same name might render the article as a hoax. EROS ^message 15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also could not find any sources verifying this is a notable artist. Finnishela (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a hoax - it's easy to find references and collections of his work - but I couldn't find the sort of reliable sources we could build an article with. › Mortee _talk 20:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:40, 24 August 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 - procedural close - nominated by ban evading sockpuppet. Nick (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Jenkins

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

In my opinion, I do not think this meets Wikipedias notability guidelines for academics or WP:BIO (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:57, 8 August 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 Manappally. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Salem Orthodox Church, Manappally

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

No sources found after an extensive search for sources on Google. I don't know Malayalam and neither have I access to sources specifically pertaining to the South Indian christian community. In its current state I believe that the article does not meet GNG. Regards — F R ⁺ 10:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overall I don't think there sis enough to make this church notable. You could possibly Redirect to ~~St. Mary's Salem Orthodox Church, Manappally~~ Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church since they appear to be connected. GameInfirmary Talk 11:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect link above is pointed to same. perhaps you meant Manappally--DBig Xray 12:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the redirect link. The article mention it is a part of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church so I figure it should be redirected there. Sorry about not linking correctly in the first place. GameInfirmary Talk 12:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manappally. I am ok for delete as well. The small church of the village is not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to lack of independent coverage. With this edit I have already copied any useful information to the village article. --DBig Xray 12:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FR30799386:@DBigXray:@Gameinfirmary:Kindly please do not delete this article. Because this article is needed. Kindly, do not to reduce it into a redirect. We can improve the article by adding somemore content. Thank you.PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FR30799386:@DBigXray:@Gameinfirmary:I added some improvements to the article. Kindly please see it. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Path slopu: While there isn't much content on the page to begin with, the issue is notability GNG. GameInfirmary Talk 13:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Path slopu, It is being discussed if the Church merits its own separate Article or it deserved to be added to Manappally article. If you can provide links of New website (in any language) or newspaper clippings or Books that talk about this church in detail, then we can keep the church article. as of now even after you add lot of stuff it is still failing our wiki policies of WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. Hope you read the links i posted to understand the actual problem. --DBig Xray 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Path slopu - Pictures and other content won't help right now, what you need to prove is that the subject meets WP:GNG and is worth to have a full-fledged article on Wikipedia. For that I would recommend you to devote all your energy to searching for atleast two high quality books, newspaper articles mentioning the church. However please keep in mind that the authors of those news articles and books must not be affiliated to the church. — F R ⁺ 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S : I have gone through some of the other church related articles that you have created and I find that they seem to lack even one independent source. I suggest that you find and add at-least one independent source for them. — F R ⁺ 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ (rather than redirect) to Manappally. That is a town of 22000+ population. The merger would in fact consist of adding the picture in the subject to the target, which already has a sentence on the church. A lot would needed to establish that the church was independently notable, but merging to the place where a church is can often be a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peterkingiron I also copied that image and 1 line of useful info to the target Village article, paving the way for a Redirect. --DBig Xray 18:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now Redirect as the merger has been done. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no problems whatsoever in a redirect/merge being effected provided only sourced statements are included. The article may be kept as redirect. — F R ⁺ 17:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FR30799386:@DBigXray:@Gameinfirmary:I added some more citations to the page. Kindly please see that.PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 12:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Path slopu:, the links you added only help to confirm the existence of this church. The Question that needs to be addressed here is a lack of reliable sources (WP:RS). just adding more of self published sources(WP:SPS) even if 100 will not help the article establish its notability (WP:N). --DBig Xray 13:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Path slopu - You seriously need to read all the stuff being linked here. The general notability guidlines which are the major criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia clearly state that articles, newspapers etc written by someone affiliated to the subject doesn't count as a reliable source. — F R ⁺ 06:00, 10 August 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. Clearly no consensus to delete outright. Unclear if this should be kept as a stand-alone article, or merged into List of dragons , but that can get hashed out on the talk pages. For the moment, calling this NC, which defaults to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of dragons in popular culture

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

Unreferenced WP:CONTENTFORK of List of dragons minus the mythology section. There is no need for two articles covering essentially the same thing. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As dragons only exist in fantasy, I don't see how they exist outside of popular culture, so unnecessary fork. One list of dragons is sufficient. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of dragons which defines itself as "limited to well-referenced examples of dragons in literature, film, television, comics, animation and video games" though also includes Music. It has a section heading "Mythology" which is just a link to List of dragons in mythology and folklore. I've now added a hatnote to List of dragons to clarify. PamD 11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of dragons, as per PamD, if there is any useful content in this article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several lists of dragons. The page in question has an edit history going back to 2003. It appears that, in that year, the main list was split into multiple sublists:

while the main list was made a list of lists called Lists of dragons. The page suggested by the nomination -- list of dragons -- only goes back to 2011 and so is a comparatively recent piece of this churning. The general principle of WP:REDUNDANTFORK is that "the more recent article should be merged back into the main article" and so we should preserve the page(s) with the longest history. In any case, arriving at the best scheme for organising all this information is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and should involve the editors of all those pages, not just a couple. Doing such investigation is what's expected per WP:BEFORE but the nominator just seems to be on a deletion spree of lists of fiction and so isn't doing due diligence. Andrew D. (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep per Andrew D; this probably should be merged back with List of dragons, but it should be a redirect (for attribution) and I'm not sure enough what else needs to be done to endorse a merge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this list is quite informative, and can be counted as necessary as dragons might feature in legends not typically seen as part of popular culture. Vorbee (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Andrew D. - Scarpy (talk) 18:22, 23 August 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. Enigma^msg 21:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business Disability Forum

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

written like an advertisement, needs additional citations for verification, single sourced, fails notability. Triplecaña (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for reliable sources yields mostly promotional websites, as well as a few press releases and articles which mention it in passing. Doesn't seem like enough for notability purposes and I can't see how this would be written as a WP:NPOV article with the lack of non-promotional outside coverage. Gilded Snail (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion. Such article with such promotional tone. If it was AfC, it won't be anywhere near to be accepted. Nominator should have tagged for CSD rather than AfD. EROS ^message 15:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disability Standard as that is basically the only thing this organization is known for. Some of the content of this article may be suitable for merging into the Disability Standard article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above analysis, references fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 13 August 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 - procedural close - nominated by ban evading sockpuppet. Nick (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Green

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

I do not think this meets Wikipedias notability guidelines for academics or WP:BIO (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets criterion 6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pirhayati Question: Which major academic institution or major academic society and what post. Can you give citations please? (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pirhayati If you refer to her presidency of the Australasian Association of Philosophy, In my opinion that Association does not qualify as a major academic institution or major academic society. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Association of Philosophy is the most important philosophical society in Australia. I think you are not familiar with the deletion process. Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute. The debate is not a vote. Then your edit in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour does not contribute to the discussion. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pirhayati Comment:

"Australasian Association of Philosophy is the most important philosophical society in Australia" - why do you think that it is the most important philosophical society in Australia?
"Then your edit in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour does not contribute to the discussion" - I didn't feel it was necessary to contribute towards the discussion as I think the article is eligible for csd. Furthermore, what is your connection to the subject of that article?

Thank you for taking your time to reply, I appreciate it. (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 12:02, 8 August 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. Enigma^msg 21:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasan Adibi

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

An early career researcher in mobile health, most of whose claims of notability at this stage are short of the specific criteria at WP:NPROF. If there is one direction where notability can be sought, this is in the impact that their research has had on the academic discipline. This is difficult to evaluate, but some hints can be gleaned from their citation count [39]: at 1011 this is relatively high, but – even if we ignore the fact that almost a third of the citations are to a co-authored survey paper – for such an apparently trendy area, this is not high enough by itself to confer notability. The article was previously deleted (after a discussion from 2014), and the notability was briefly discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators#Sasan Adibi and at Talk:Sasan Adibi#Contested deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG, it was deleted back in 2014, and there doesn't appear to be anything new which should alter that result. As Uanfala has pointed out, the citation count is marginal, with the single largest, and only really significant count of 318 was for a multi-authored paper, and add to that the lack of prominent academic positions, they fail WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt blatantly promotional. The long list of EL is a tell. Please remove this pollution from mainspace with alacrity. Given that this is the second time we have shovelled out the trash on this topic, please salt. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's appropriate to salt an article just because it was re-created once, a couple years after the first deletion. Also, this is an early career academic, so notability can change in the future. – Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:03, 10 August 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) wumbolo ^^^ 12:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Varghese

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

Fails WP:NACTOR who has made exactly one short film. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Two references confirm he has been in a short film, and he stands out amongst a group of 87 people. scope_creep (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angamaly Diaries, his notable film role. If he becomes notable in the future, article can be easily restored from redirect. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has starred in two movies, both feature-length, both notable. Angamaly Diaries, released on 3 March 2017, has a running time of 132 minutes and Swathanthryam Ardharathriyil, released on 31 March 2018, in 137 minutes. In both cases, Varghese is identified as the star. He passes WP:NACTOR. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not sufficient for WP:NACTOR. He doesn't inherit notability from being in notable films (all of two), and his awards are not sufficient to meet notability as an actor. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two is multiple. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two is not multiple. Your shaving definitions to try and prove notability, when it is not there. scope_creep (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has two leading roles in feature films and has received three notable awards, multiple means several which is two or more, passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Angamaly Diaries sympathetic to the "two is not multiple" argument. - Scarpy (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has acted in two full length feature films as the main hero. Satisfies WP:N as he has multiple references from major Indian publications - this is from The Hindu, this is from The Deccan Chronicle, this is from Malayala Manorama, this is from The Times of India, this is from The New Indian Express, this is from The News Minute and this is from The Hindustan Times. Has at least 2 more full length films in his kitty and considering that most of the references provided above hail him as the next big thing in the Malayalam movie industry, deleting his page does not make much sense. Jupitus Smart 06:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. Played leading roles in two notable feature films, and most importantly, have reliable coverage in multiple independent sources.--Let There Be Sunshine 08:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jupitus Smart. They are solid references. Withdrawn by nominator scope_creep (talk) 09:22, 28 August 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 01:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional gangs

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

For the most part original research. Full of non-notable listcruft and better served by Category:Fictional gangs. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-encyclopedic for the most part. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial and crufty. WP:OR and WP:ITEXISTS, sure, there are fictional gangs, but they're not necessarily notable. By the way, @Zxcvbnm:, WP:TNT says to "blow it up and start over", implying it is notable, but just poorly written. That's not what you mean, right? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed that part of my rationale, it was put in by mistake. I agree it should just be deleted._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is a worthless essay. WP:CLN is a proper guideline which tells us that 'the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists'. And of course, the topic passes WP:LISTN because entire books are written about this such as Youth Gangs in Literature. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep vote is garbage vote by known keepist, and should be ignored. Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRUFT. » Shadowowl | talk 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a completely inappropriate and insubstantial comment. This is not how we discuss, and Andrew D., regardless of your disagreement with him, did far more to explain how what he cited applied than you did with your WP:VAGUEWAVE. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as complement to category per WP:CLN and as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP, and there are clearly enough entries with articles to merit a list regardless of whether editors decide that only notable entries should be included (not a concern for this AFD to resolve). The nomination is also contrary to WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, complaining of what the content is "for the most part" or of other fixable problems. We do not delete content because it includes flaws (even assuming that is a correct assertion here), nor do we delete lists just because they currently include entries that some editors think they should not (again, the non-notable entry issue need not be resolved here). We should not be nominating content for deletion if we are unwilling or unable to consider its potential. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One more observation...nominations like this essentially try to turn CLN upside down. It's not necessary to make a special case for why we'd have a list as well as a category. But if you're going to argue that a list should be deleted even though the category is fine, you do need to go out of your way to explain why the two should be treated differently, while remembering that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the !votes of Andrew D. and Postdlf. It's not "original research" in any meaningful sense to note major characters, plot elements and features of setting. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the page could use stricter inclusion criteria; the gang should at least be mentioned on the linked page to the fictional work it is from. (if The Simpsons actually have a prison gang called the "Sunday Funnies", it's probably a one-line gag). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. The debate was lengthy and well-contested at points on both sides, but consensus favors deletion, and it is correctly pointed out that there is no clear way to delineate the parameters of such a list. I do note, however, that it may be worthwhile to create an article on the topic of Giant animals in fiction, rather than merely pursuing a list. bd2412 T 04:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of giant animals in fiction

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no clearly defined criteria for inclusion. Entirely original research. For the most part, better served by Category:Kaiju. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Giant animals" seems fairly clear to me. The rest is an issue for improvement, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The threshold of "giant" is very unclear. Moby Dick is a slightly larger than real life sperm whale, and Mothra is a massive moth bigger than an airplane. And if dragons are "giant" does that mean "giant relative to real life animals" or "giant within a fictional universe"? Never mind the fact that many fictional dragons are small._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTCRUFT. No clear inclusion policy. Ajf773 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:LISTCRUFT and Gameinfirmary. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 13:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an incoherent and unsourced disaster that would justifiably be deleted by WP:TNT; I see no good redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TNT, TNT, TNT. Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay. WP:TNT is an essay. Our actual policies and guidelines are WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:CLN, and WP:LISTN. This topic passes them because it is covered in sources such as The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters; Armageddon Films; The Kaiju Film: A Critical Study of Cinema's Biggest Monsters. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: You are, as always, misrepresenting our actual policies, and wikilawyering over the fact that the pages that elaborate on what our policies actually say and provide the widely accepted (one might even say standard) interpretations thereof) are currently technically classified as "essays". Specifically, you are ignoring that the relevant policy, WP:DEL-REASON allows for this page's deletion or redirecting per reasons 5, 6 (probably), 7, 8 (kinda), 13 and 14. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would ask you please read articles before !voting on whether they should be deleted going forward. No rational editor could !vote to WP:PRESERVE the article in its current state, unless they were completely ignorant of what was actually in it. I don't think you are familiar with either Final Fantasy or Cardcaptor Sakura: if you were, you would know that what is in this list is incredibly arbitrary and ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arguments by keepists are garbage. Fails WP:LISTCRUFT, or if keepists really want a policy, WP:NOTDIR. » Shadowowl | talk 21:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth adding that Andrew, as is his habit, violated ARS's rules by not giving a valid reason for keeping the article and instead just leaving a joke comment that can only be interpreted as "Inclusionist friends and allies! The deletionists are at it again -- you know what to do!" I've told him off for this multiple times and he just doesn't seem to be learning -- perhaps a TBAN is in order... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is very obviously listcruft, and there really is no meaningful relationship between the entries that unifies them as a single group to be together on a list. It's like having a list of animals in fiction whose names start with L. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft is not a policy or guideline; just a hostile opinion. Gigantism is a real thing – see pages like megafauna or island gigantism. It is therefore quite a reasonable basis for analysis and we have sources such as the The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters which do so with headings such as Gargantuan Animals and Monstrous Apes. Tryptofish's !vote is thefeore neither based on policy nor the evidence. Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson:--In case, you choose to resort to disruptively redirect a much-cited essay, per your whims, an AN Trip will be in short order. ∯WBG^converse 12:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is basically vandalism » Shadowowl | talk 13:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That attempted redirect is pretty amazing. Andrew, I realize that you have decided that you don't like me, but the fact is that you listed this AfD at the Article Rescue Squad without remembering to note it here, so I noted it. Anyway, I'm quite aware that gigantism exists in biology. But if editors want me to spell out policy some more, no problem. I think that WP:LISTN certainly requires, by implication, that the list comply with WP:NOR. If the list is created by observing that one source lists a certain number of giant fictional animals, and then another source lists another group of such animals, with some overlap between the two but not complete congruence, and then a third source does likewise – and then editors create the list page by combining together all of the giant fictional animals from all of those sources plus some other giant fictional animals, then that is WP:SYNTH, particularly if one source is about giant animals in mythology, another is about giant animals in more recent literature, another about children's stories, and another about cinema. That problem does not arise in Megafauna (mythology) because that page is about the subject. But making a standalone list page requires secondary sourcing that supports inclusion of all members of the list as members of a single list group, or else a combination of such groups based on editor selection ends up being original research. That's why WP:LISTN says: a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources – it goes on to say that not every member of the list need be notable on its own, but that's not the same thing as saying that not every member need be part of the "group or set" without violating SYNTH. And I see in this discussion that some editors who should know better are saying that, because there is enough sourcing to conclude that "giant fictional animals" is a subject that passes WP:GNG, then that's that, and we must keep the page. However, we also have WP:What Wikipedia is not. Therefore, being "notable" means that we may keep a page, but it does not mean that we must keep a page. The SYNTH inherent in this list page is what makes it "cruft". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, that essay should be redirected on grounds that it is "cruft cruft" ie basically redundant to umpteen other essays on the same subject. And there is a list in the Armaggedon Films book. James500 (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING — JFG ^talk 13:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Andrew correctly notes, WP:LISTCRUFT isn't policy, and nobody has yet made an argument for delete that references WP:CLN or WP:LISTN. I would also point out that we do have an article on giant animals in mythology, megafauna (mythology), and it seems to me that the topic of fictional megafauna is undoubtedly notable and has received academic attention in a variety of reputable sources. The absence of an appropriate main article is not a compelling reason to conclude that the topic such an article would consider is not notable - and so even the non-policy WP:LISTCRUFT leaves open the possibility of this list being notable. Kilopylae (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC) — Kilopylae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What does WP:CLN have to do with this? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The material in WP:DOAL, while relating primarily to technical considerations, might reasonably be referenced in an argument in favour of deleting the article. Kilopylae (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310: I've replaced the tag you put on the above !vote, since Kilopylae has never edited the article in question, and the account was apparently created specifically for this AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are too many problems with this incoherent list. Many of these will be from films on List of films featuring giant monsters, others (such as Moby-Dick) are simply about large animals, and some (Jabberwock) may not be large at all. Megafauna (mythology) may be a merge target, if it's acceptable to mention King Kong, Babe the Blue Ox and the like there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have !voted twice, changing this to a comment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. based on the sourcing Andrew and Drm1 specifies above. ILooking at delete comments after those comments, I don't see the problems mentioned. The one substantive reply seems to misunderstand: Moby Dick is exactly the sort of giant animal whose role in a famous fiction can be exhaustively sourced, That fact that's he's larger than other whales in central and what everyone remembers about it. And tho he's central to the book, the book is about a great deal morre than "simply about large animals" ) . King Kong is not mythological...he's a deliberate fictional creation invented in 1923, a film where he's central, and where his size is his key characteristic. Both of them are exactly what this list should be about. Babe the Blue Ox is folklore, not mythology. but is important to njmerous fictions about Paul Bunyan. In all these the act that the animal is giant is central to the fiction. The Jaberwock is described in the poem as a large animal--see the poem. I agree that it's unclear whether it's giant or merely vicious. The other commen tthat gives a reason,gives one that does not apply. . "Not Everything" -- this isn't about every animal or or even every giant animal ever existing or conceived --it's a list of those animals reasonably central to notable fiction. If there are some listed in non-notable fiction they should be removed. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Drm310 actually doesn't provide any sources above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of Andrew's three sources, one (the kaijuu one) if anything demonstrates the notability of a separate article that has already been redirected, one (the Ashgate one) is useless for a list but might theoretically be good if we were writing an unrelated article on the history of giant animals in fiction, and one has a GBooks preview that is currently unavailable to me. It's obvious Andrew hasn't read the two that I have access to and I highly doubt he's read the other one either, rather just Googling them up and linking them here in the hopes that others, such as DGG and Drm310, would just say "keep per Andrew". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total bullshit written by someone who apparently likes Final Fantasy even more than I do, but has never actually thought about it all that much. "Chocobos", for example, are only "giant" if one considers them to be chickens rather than ostriches. Nothing in the article worth keeping, no reason given to assume it could ever be any different, given the number of other articles on essentially this same topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasoning of DGG and the sources (Ashgate and Armaggedon certainly, and probably the other since the book says Kaiju generally denotes "epic size") provided by Andrew Davidson, which demonstrate a clear pass of LISTN, inasmuch as giant animals satisfy GNG as a group, being discussed as a group in sources. James500 (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: Actually, per my response to DGG, the sources appear to demonstrate the notability of a separate article detailing the history of giant animals in fiction, which this ain't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If "giant animals in fiction" satisfies GNG, then "list of giant animals in fiction" automatically satisfies LISTN, because that is how LISTN works. If X satisfies GNG, then list of X automatically satisfies LISTN. If this seems odd, bear in mind that I did not write the guideline and am not to blame for it. James500 (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC) That said, a page move to "giant animals in fiction" with an option to spin out the list later if the page becomes to long, would not be completely unreasonable at this point, there being no main article at this point. James500 (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That doesn't matter. If the only way we can build a list is by violating NOR, we are not allowed have a list. The sources do not allow for this. Use of the Ashcroft source for a list like this one is OR; breaking down the content of the Ashcroft source to only list individual giant animals would completely miss the point. If you want to make a swamp monster of this and turn the article that is currently there into a completely different kind of article based on the sources that are available, fire ahead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if a book says the Japanese word kaijū "generally denotes epic size", then it can promptly be dismissed as unreliable, as even "laymen" in this "field" know that that is dai-kaijū ("big monsters"), not kaijū which says nothing in particular of size. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible to create a list of giant animals in fiction without original research, using the sources available. James500 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it would be pointless and would miss the point of the sources to such an extent as to seem to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of NOR, to remove all the historical discussion given in, say, the Ashcroft source and turn it into an alphabetical list of monster names. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The third source is clearly relevant because its subtitle is A Critical Study of Cinema's Biggest Monsters. Another similar work is Giant Creatures in Our World: Essays on Kaiju and American Popular Culture. This spends a lot of time discussing the scope and meaning of words like kaiju in its introduction. These are works of hundreds of pages and amply satisfy WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: You clearly have not actually read the kaiju book, since if you had either (a) you would come to the conclusion that it is a completely unusable source filled with errors or (b) you would realize that the Japanese term 怪獣 is problematic here since, even if it is using the term as a synonym for 大怪獣 (and explicitly justified this nonstandard terminology in the text), it refers to a broad range of monsters, some completely imaginary (i.e., not giant versions of real-world animals), and whether it covers humanoid monsters like Sanda and Gaiga is a matter of debate (since 怪獣 as opposed to 大怪獣 says nothing about size in Japanese, there's no reason why Frankenstein's original monster is not called a 怪獣 in Japanese but his children are). It is definitely not coterminous with the present article's "giant animals", and in fact a separate "list of kaiju" was already redirected as a result of a previous discussion, so attempting to use this AFD to turn a separate article into a content fork of that one (which would engage in blatant OR by conflating the terms 怪獣 and 大怪獣 with "giant animals") is ... pretty disruptive, and comes across as the same type of behaviour for which several editors including myself called you out in a recent AN discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it is OR to take a set of sources that describe a category of creatures they call kaijū, and extrapolate from that your own subcategory of kaijū that is only the "giant animals", and especially to add to this subcategory other giant animals that are not referred to as kaijū. You simply are not allowed do this. If you want to argue with TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) about unredirecting the separate list of kaiju creatures article, fire ahead, but don't pretend the two are actually the same topic and use sources on the already redirected page to prop up this one. And definitely don't try to argue the definitions of common Japanese words based on your own misreadings of various sources (some specialist and assuming prior knowledge on the reader's part, others simply wrong). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Japanese, but I would add that taking a source about Kaijū, and another about large animals in English-language cinema, and combining them into a single list can involve WP:SYNTH unless the sources specify that these are entirely the same thing. Cultural differences may make these things into not-really-overlapping categories. (Perhaps monsters that attack cities are not the same thing as friendly giant creatures in children's stories.) No problem with comparing those in a regular article, but this is a list page. Also, I've noticed at the list page talk page that editors have had disagreements over inclusion criteria, something that invites further WP:OR without sourcing that defines useful criteria for all list members. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These things are famous for their size, so perfectly valid list article. Some things of course don't need to be on the list. We have Megafauna (mythology) for all the giant animals in mythology to be listed at. Leviathan and Behemoth link to the biblical creatures, not the ones in the Final Fantasy games. I don't think every giant character in every video game ever should be listed since that'd be quite a large pointless list. A valid list would contain giant dogs who have articles about their characters, films, or bestselling book series of course. Fictional things that are not a major part of the fictional series they are part of, that get no mention of their own can be purged. The list is perfectly valid, just needs specific inclusion criteria. Does anyone doubt that Clifford the Big Red Dog or King Kong are notable because of their size? Dream Focus 21:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Is a list of animals that are "large" in size in all of fiction really discriminate and focused as a topic? I'd be more inclined to see this as a category than a list article. The subject is not focused enough to ever be truly complete, nor could it be developed into a list article of any level of quality until parameters on what is "giant" are set - and given that fictional universes don't have data for the most part, that would mean using WP:SYNTH to do so. This just screams problematic all over. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We could merge all content to Megafauna (mythology) and List of giants in mythology and folklore and redirect to one of these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: I feel like I've said this in at least four AFDs in the last seven months, starting with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swamp monster and most recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (4th nomination), but mythology (or folklore) and fiction are not the same thing, and almost nothing in this list could be called "mythology" by any definition. Had you said redirect and highly selective merge to ensure no OR or fancruft I would have no problem, but you can't say "merge all content" and not expect to be told that chocobos are neither mythological nor folkoric. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we do have Lists of fictional animals. Having also List of fictional giant animals looks a little "forkish" and subjective. Second, Dragon, Leviathan and Behemoth (on this page) belong to mythology. Saying that, I think this page might be kept, the discussion above looks like "no consensus" to me. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Dragon", "behemoth" and "leviathan" are not here because they come from mythology; they are specifically listed because of the appearance of entirely imaginary fictional creatures that share their names appearing in various pop culture properties. Strictly speaking "behemoth" and "leviathan" are not "mythological" anyway; they are names appearing in the bible, whose referents are uncertain, but probably refer to elephants and whales respectively, both of which actually exist and so are not "fictional" in any sense, and are only mythological in the same way human beings are. The discussion above looks like "no consensus" only if you ignore the fact that all of the "keep" !votes are based on ridiculous arguments that have been thoroughly discredited, and mostly come from "keepist" editors who never !vote delete. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of fictional animals is a list of lists and the list in question is one of its many sub-lists. There are huge numbers of notable fictional animals from Akela to Zapdos. Because there are so many, they have been organised into sensible sublists like this one of giant animals. Andrew D. (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is that what happened here? That's not what the page creator's edit summary said. BTW, your new argument contradicts your previous argument that the subject is "notable" because of various sources you Googled up but didn't read, but you haven't retracted that one or even attempted to defend it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, is anyone gonna close this? There's clear consensus to delete; with maybe one exception (but which one?), all of the "keep" !votes are from serial "keepists" who never !vote "delete", and all of them are based on misreading of sources or bogus arguments about hypothetical inclusion criteria that simply wouldn't work and make this an OR magnet or the like, and have been discredited without even making an attempt to argue in their own favour. And even if this were just about counting votes in which a nonsense argument from an SPA is worth the same as a policy-based argument from an experienced contributor, it would be 13-6 in favour of deletion (or 12-5, if you discount the !vote from the editor who only showed up here as part of a hounding campaign against me). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be closed by an admin seven days after the most recent relisting. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that was several hours before I posted the above, and the last relist was about the worst and most blatant example of WP:RELISTBIAS I've seen in recent memory. If we're being completely fair, the first relist was not great either; Andrew's !votes seem to be given more weight the more disruptive and less coherent they are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An indiscriminate collection of information - are there any sources that describe the list as a whole? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A list of this sort isn't going to be exact. WP:LISTN states specifically that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability...". There are clearly sources which cover this in a general way such as The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters which has a section headed "Gargantuan Animals" which lists examples such as Shelob and the giant ants of Them!. The list concept is therefore notable and so not indiscriminate. Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, this is getting to the point where I can't believe you haven't been TBANned yet: I already pointed out to you above that the Ashgate article is not a list, and if anything demonstrates notability for an article discussing the history, etc. of giant animals in fiction, not a list. Your claiming, despite my having already rebutted you weeks ago, that has a section headed "Gargantuan Animals" which lists [emphasis added] examples ... [t]he list concept is therefore notable and so not indiscriminate comes across as deliberate disruption, and at best is engaging in somewhat "creative" tricks of language. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN does not require the source to present the information in list form, like we do. It states, "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set". That's what the Ashgate Encyclopedia does. Its overall topic is "Literary and Cinematic Monsters" and it discusses "Gargantuan Animals" in a distinct section. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase the Merchant of Venice, "Mark you this Bassanio, the Devil can cite WP:LISTN for his own purpose". In this case, what I don't understand is why has nobody managed to write a good lead that clearly and unambiguously explains the importance of the list. I would venture that's because it isn't possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit notice for this discussion states that "...valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight ... commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive." So, I cite WP:LISTN because that is a relevant guideline. The Merchant of Venice seems less relevant and so may be given less weight. Andrew D. (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason LISTN is called a guideline is because it needs to be interpreted according to circumstances. If a topic would be better covered in a prose article than a list like this one, and the list option would be a bullshit OR magnet, then we don't have a list. If you want to write a separate article discussing the history Giant animals in fiction, fire ahead, but the page under discussion now needs to go. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we decided to restructure the content, the relevant policies would be WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE which indicate that we would build upon the existing page rather than deleting and starting from nothing. In the recent similar case of List of fictional swords and Swords in fiction, it was decided to stick with the list title and format. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I would opt to see that list deleted as well. There's nothing to rebuild here because the notion of the topic is flawed. Again, is all of fiction discriminate enough as a focus to meet WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? I would argue that it does not. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, please stop speaking in ridiculous hypotheticals. PRESERVE doesn't apply here because literally nothing in this list is worth preserving (even entries that might merit discussion in a good article are unsourced and poorly written, and most are complete bullshit). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly want to preserve the entries for King Kong, which is vital for this topic, and the Giant Rat of Sumatra, which is especially entertaining and notable. To delete such valid entries would be disruptive and that's why our policy is to build on such key elements. Andrew D. (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the "Giant Rat of Sumatra" is an example of a fictional giant animal is questionable when it originates a throwaway fictional allusion in a work by Conan Doyle that apparently didn't specify its size (lots of real-world animals are called "giant" just because they are larger than what the speaker might be used to, so Doyle might have been imagining something that was still significantly smaller that the ROUSes in The Princess Bride), and the source attached to it is actually about a newly-discovered real-life giant rat in kinda-sorta neighbouring New Guinea, clearly unrelated to the fictional creature (but using a source that claims the animal in question is not fictional afterall kinda goes against the stated purpose of the list). As for King Kong, abundant sources could be found identifying him as a kaijū, which would make his listing here redundant if the other article hadn't already been redirected due to persistent vandalism (not notability, so you're free to recreate the list). Neither entry includes any useful information that isn't already stated better elsewhere in the encyclopedia, so WP:PRESERVE doesn't actually apply. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I just checked the page history. You're the one who misinterpreted the source as talking about an actual fictional animal appearing in stories by Arthur Conan Doyle, rather than a throwaway fake allusion interpreted variously by later authors. If you don't know how giant "giant" is, and if various writers of both fiction and non-fiction have interpreted it as referring to "above average, but not entirely out of the ordinary, so that a real animal could actually be given the same name", you are violating NOR (the spirit if not the letter) to list it here. By doing so, you added to the reasons to delete this article, even if your intent was clearly the opposite.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me suggest to both of you that it probably is not useful to continue discussing this here. It's pretty obvious that you disagree with each other and that neither one of you is likely to change the other's mind. To some extent, this is a disagreement about deletion criteria, and to some extent it's a disagreement over personal conduct, and the latter should be addressed via dispute resolution, but not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty much an unnecessary list, should be deleted. It's too broad as well, and is not well defined. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by me per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beats Fitness Studio

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

Non notable company. Local chain of a few gyms, without relevant coverage for notability. Some indication of marketing language/unsourced claims. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:53, 8 August 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. I would strongly suggest that the folks involved here examine the question of whether the material is better suited to an article on the founder of this company. Vanamonde (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toba Capital

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

Delete A promotional article on a run-of-the-mill VC firm. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it a substitute for a corporate web page nor is it a Yellow Pages. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a simple Google search shows this passes WP:GNG. An extra consideration for those who don't work with investor articles - Wikipedia is very weak on VC and private equity firms. They don't like the attention. Calling this promotional is incorrect - the firm likely doesn't want this article here. Why do you suppose there's no Vinnie Smith article, despite this coverage? [[40]] [[41]] [[42]] [[43]] [[44]] [[45]] [[46]] [[47]] etc. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Tim, the very idea that firms don't want articles here is ironic given that recently some VCs complained in a newspaper in the UK that their articles were being deleted. It appears that many VC articles also rely on "inherited notability" - perhaps one of their partners is notable in their own right or perhaps the firm have invested in notable companies - but that doesn't translate to the VC company being notable themselves. Also, we have debated the criteria for notability for organizations and companies and unless enough people believe VC companies deserve special criteria, then we expect articles that meet the criteria in WP:NCORP to be available. None of those references you've selected meet the criteria for establishing notability. This Mercury News reference is based on an interview with a company officer and contains no intellectually independent analysis or opinion (because the focus of the article is Vinny, not the company), fails WP:ORGIND. The OCR reference is also about Vinny. Toba gets a mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The OCBJ reference is a profile on Vinny, Toba gets a mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. THe WSJ reference is .. about Vinny. (I'm seeing a pattern) Selling his house. Toba gets a mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Business Insider UK reference is also about Vinny selling his house (you do realise this article isn't about Vinny, right?) and Toba gets mentioned in the context of "Venture capitalist Vinny Smith, founder of Toba Capital, has placed his riverfront estate in Oakley, Utah, on the market for $30 million." Fails everything but especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTINHERIT. The socaltech reference is based on a company announcement that one of its portfolio companies was acquired, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The bizjournals reference is another about Vinny selling his house. Toba gets mentioned in the context of Vinny Smith now runs Toba Capital, a venture capital firm in San Francisco and Newport Beach, but he is best known locally as the former chief executive and chairman of San Francisco-based Quest Software. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the OregonLive reference is based on a company announcement with interviews from connected sources, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that UK article you are talking about. I actually alerted two of the closing editors on their talk pages that they were "famous"! For Toba, I added some more media coverage about the company. Several sources say the founder is publicity shy, so the filings about investments are about as much coverage as you'll find. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question is the article about the company or about Vinny Smith? All of the sources are about Smith with pasig mentions of the company. If Smith is notable, then by all means write an article about him, but not all of his ventures will inherit that notability. Doesn’t look like the company has really done anything notable other than get founded by a potentially notable person. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 23:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable enough. I thought someone else would have done one by now. I might still, but there's enough coverage for the company also. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. The sources are passing metions, routine funding news, and / or WP:SPIP. Just a promotional directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're a deletionist, and I'm an inclusionist, yet we've found consensus on more than a few articles. Nonetheless, discounting coverage in the The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and San Jose Mercury News as routine suggests you've set the bar so high that few companies would meet it. Also, the closing administrator will note that funding announcements, rather than being promotional, are to be expected, as that's what the company does as a venture capital company. The nominator has proposed that the largest venture capital company in Orange County, California, with $800M under investment, is run of the mill. I added their funding amount to the lede so there'd be no question of notability. I also just added news of two more deals, including one with drink company True, which just used some of the funding to buy the assets of defunct meal kit provider Chef'd. [[48]]. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tis a real pity that some editors feel the need to label themselves (and others) as either "deletionist" or "inclusionist". Makes me wonder why we bother to have policies and guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policies can be useful guidelines also. A good one is WP:BEFORE. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more media coverage. I keep finding more the more I look. Going back to your point on policies, I don't think it's a pity that we approach these articles with a different perspective - that's what finding consensus is all about. After successfully debating famously heavy deletionists like SwisterTwister and Light2021 and saving many articles, I'm very comfortable with my judgement and instinct. In using the deletionist label, I was actually referring to K.e.coffman. We've interacted in the AfD forum more, and his delete votes are at about 80%. I just checked yours, and deletes are at 97.4%. I'm at about 40%. I didn't create the labels you dislike, but just looking at the numbers, they support how the labels are used.. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find stats can be misleading when taken out of context (plus that's an analysis of the latest 200 !votes). For example, it could be argued that the stat showing how often a !vote agreed with consensus to be the most relevant. I agreed with consensus 84.8% of the time (93.8% without considering No Consensus) and have !voted in 1,485 AfDs. Yours is 73.3% (84.9% without considering No Consensus) after !voting in 485 AfDs. There are a number of explanations but both our stats show a high degree of !voting according to the general consensus and therefore with an understanding of relevant policies/guidelines (your blip above excepted). Therefore despite my overwhelming "delete" !vote history and the labels you are attempting to affix, it may be simply that within the last 200 AfDs, the articles simply didn't meet the requirements for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both have good track records. I just can’t figure out why you don’t have more keeps. 97% of the articles at AfD aren’t deletes. Is it possible you are just avoiding clear keeps, for some reason, thinking perhaps your vote isn’t needed? With this one, you can still withdraw your nomination - I can’t imagine any closer is going to delete an article about an almost Billion dollar company, and the largest one of its kind in one of the richest counties in the US. I can add more coverage but at some point want to move on. Out of curiousity, take a look at the handful of articles for which I voted delete yet were kept (pure keeps, not no consensus closes). I bet you’d probably agree with all my votes for those. Many of those closes still surprise me. Cheers, and see you in the AfD arena. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... without references that meet the criteria for establishing notability (according to policies and guidelines) then I can't see why I need to reconsider my !vote. You say that you can't see a closer deleting an article about an almost billion dollar company - but it has happened before and it will happen again simply because we rely on intellectually independent references for organizations/companies, not PRIMARY sources (or other sources that rely on PRIMARY sources). Even the $800million "under investment" number comes from a PRIMARY source. Also, I work nearly exclusively in AfDs relating to companies/organizations and the vast majority of those articles are spam and/or do not have intellectually-independent sources to establish notability. Like this one. :-) We'll lock horns again I'm sure... HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No horn locking - it's all good - we're committed editors passionate about making the site better, just with different approaches. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like many non-notable VC's it looks like it is tying to inherit notability from its investments. And from Vinny Smith in this case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's an $800M investment company, the largest venture capital company in Orange County, the sixth most populated county in the United States. The significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources I identified meets WP:NCORP. Please state a policy-based opinion for deletion. The specific targeting of venture capital companies regardless of notability appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOLWUT? It now has notability based on population of surrounding area? Take it from someone who grew up near Sand Hill Road, $800m-$1b for a VC in 2018 is not that much. The fact that it gives away that much but still there's not much written about it attests to it not being that notable. Seems pretty clear all the coverage is about Vinny Smith so make an article about him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading me wrong. Coverage notes that it's the largest VC in the entire county. It's a large county - not like the largest VC in South Dakota. Anything about the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources I identified? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s borderline absurd. The location is irrelevant. Would it be less notable if it was the largest VC in New York County, San Mateo County, San Francisco County or Santa Clara County, all of which are smaller? And what dollar value would you require if it was in South Dakota but was an early stage investor in companies like Facebook or Google? If it truly is the largest VC in the county at that size, it may say more about the lack of VCs in the county than anything else. NonTastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 17:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counties are an arbitrary division that mean nothing when it comes to businesses (besides extremely minute tax details) and even less when it comes to Wikipedia notability. VCs does not serve a local population – thus the location of its headquarters and being the largest VC in the county is completely irrelevant. That detail might be important in something like an article on a county library system or sheriff, not in an article on a VC company, but again all that matters here is significant coverage of the corporation itself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The media felt this was notable enough to include in the coverage - and I'm just repeating it. But I agree that it can be subjective. Any thoughts about the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources I identified? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient coverage about Toba Capital in this article in The Mercury News titled "With Toba Capital, Vinny Smith suddenly emerges as a player in the venture industry" and this article in the Orange County Business Journal titled "Toba Rolls Ahead With String of Exits, IPO" to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
The Mercury News article contains quotes from interviews with Toba founder Vinnnie Smith, but there is enough research from the journalist to establish notability:
Former Quest chairman and CEO Vinny Smith, for his part, is plowing the fortune he reaped from the sale [of Quest Software to Michael Dell for $2.4 billion] into a new venture firm called Toba Capital.
In the past few months, Toba has invested in more than a dozen enterprise software startups. On Tuesday, San Jose’s Quorum — a maker of data-recovery software — will become the latest addition to Smith’s portfolio, with an $11 million infusion.
...
And Smith is spreading the wealth beyond the Bay Area. Though he’s recently opened a three-person San Francisco office, his team of software-executives-turned-investors also is deployed in New York, Texas, Minnesota and Southern California.
...
Since getting back into the venture business, he’s attacked things with gusto. Last month, Toba led a $10 million investment in Palo Alto software maker WSO2; last week, Smith’s firm doled out $9 million for Codenvy, a San Francisco startup that helps developers build and test apps via the cloud.
...
As for the firm’s name? It refers to the Toba Eruption, a volcanic explosion in Indonesia more than 70,000 years ago that some scientists believe led to a global winter that supercharged human evolution.
Cunard (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So all the sources keep returning to Vinny Smith. Delete this and Create an article on Vinny Smith that doesn’t rely amlmost entirely on inherited notability from another, notable subject. But making investments in non-notable companies doesn’t make a company notable. Vinny Smith sounds like a good subject to write on. This company really done much of anything yet. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that making investments in non-notable companies doesn't make a company notable. Receiving significant coverage in reliable sources as has happened here does make a company notable. There is enough significant coverage about Toba Capital itself to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Cunard (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this week's Orange County Business Journal updated Toba's size - the company now has more than $1B invested in about 75 companies. I added the info to the article. The OCBJ article is unfortunately paywalled, but I can email a PDF of the article if anyone would like to read it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure $1 billion is not all that much in the VC world but just sort of typical. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist is the charm
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per other comments here. In-depth coverage of company itself is missing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - posting link showing comparison between nominated version and current version, for interested editors (and closers).[[49]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and even NCORP. Refs can have a focus on the CEO and still be considered significant coverage for the company, so long as the company is discussed at length, as occurs in the Mercury piece. From WP:NCORP: "an article on a ... CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the ... CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)". As Cunard noted, from WP:GNG: " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Pegnawl (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except NCORP also states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You can't just cherry pick bits of policies and guidelines that you like and skip bits that don't support your opinon (well, you obviously can, just don't be surprised when others point it out). What parts of the Mercury reference are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 16 August 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 Withdrawn with no other opinions to delete. Apparently WP:PROF#C6 is a thing.... whatever disagreements I have with it are bigger than can be dealt with in an AfD. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Bailey (academic)

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

"Former college president" does not seem to meet any specific notability criteria. Of the three sources, two are primary (published by the universities for which she worked), and one is said to be a single article in a local newspaper (can't verify, no link provided). It seems the only thing setting her apart from the hundreds of other non-notable college presidents is about termination at WMU (and I removed an unsourced BLPVIO alleging some sort of misconduct)... but even then WP:1EVENT would apply. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - president of not one but two universities, therefore meets item No. 6 of WP:NACADEMIC; additionally there are quite a few articles about her. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. University presidents are automatically notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria, point 6: "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C6 as argued above. Notability is not temporary; having held these positions is sufficient. In academic biographies, sources affiliated with the subject (e.g., websites of the universities where they studied or worked) are considered reliable for claims not likely to be challenged (e.g., the years when they studied or worked there). XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily arguing that primary sources are not reliable, merely that they lack the independence to establish notability (WP:42). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by the fact of her having been president of two universities, which is amply attested in outside sources (e.g., [50][51][52][53][54][55], not to mention the sources already present in the article, which count even though they require a subscription). XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for nom @Salvidrim!: FYI, determining notability for academics (WP:NACADEMICS) can be a little tricky. They can be highly notable or famed in their field, yet not receive much coverage about their lives in the general press, so thus seemingly fail WP:42. President or chancellor of a university is an extremely prestigious and influential position and typically only comes after a long career, so thus it automatically merits notability on its own (though these people always have a lot of news articles, including when they come and go from their posts, especially at public universities). Also for the future, you have to look for sources before you do an AfD — the fact that before there were only primary sources doesn't mean anything at all, because other sources were plentiful. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination seems to be founded in a lack of understanding of WP:PROF#C6 and of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 8 August 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. I don't see this turning around in a day, and the original deletion was kicked off by a now-blocked sock, so there's not much point in letting it run. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald E. Ingber

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

I speedied this as G11, but I've been asked to restore and bring here. I've removed the inappropriate ELs and Media sections, but what's left is promotional in tone and much is unsourced or sourced to non-RS Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a member of the Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academies should be enough to pass point 3 of WP:PROF. Being a fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (see Recognition, 2011 in the article) is another basis for passing point 3. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain - meets GNG as WP:Academic. Appears to be highly cited with 140k+ citations. H-index and G-index are in triple digits. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC. Ingber is Judah Folkman Professor of Vascular Biology at Harvard Medical School and director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard (Harvard page). Scholarly sources apart, there are other secondary sources discussing his work. For example, "From E. coli to Ebola: A device that can filter deadly pathogens out of the body", The Washington Post, 16 September 2014; "The man who built organs on chips", Cosmos, 18 January 2015; "Organs on chips", The Scientist, 28 August 2017. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as above. - PKM (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my looking around I saw nothing that said this article shouldn't be kept. That said, it is unfortunate when a worthy subject's article is complicated by seemingly COI editors. Rgroleau created Donald E. Ingber, Lung on a chip, and Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, and contributed to Tensegrity. And basically very little else but what concerned Ingber and Boston Children's Hospital. Checking the other five links into the page finds an example where Ingber was added to the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering page by JohnSerbian1951, which seems the very definition of an SPA. I guess this is the continuing tension between cultivating the knowledgeable editor and wishing for the disinterested editor. Shenme (talk) 22:24, 8 August 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. Enigma^msg 21:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Obry

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and even WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He's come close to passing NTENNIS with a few junior slam finals, but never quite made it. Iffy★Chat -- 08:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Sandals1 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition, reasonable arguments given. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MotionVR

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

unlikely notability fgnievinski (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The first citation makes no mention of the subject, the second is dead and cannot be evaluated. I am unable to any find further substantial coverage in WP:RS, though there are a couple of youtube videos titled with the keywords, and I found citation in conference proceedings in scholar search as well as several Japanese/Korean sources that I am unable to evaluate fully. I am prepared to change my !vote if someone thinks that they are more than passing mentions.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:46, 15 August 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 Computer science. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Informatics Practices

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

This article is not noteworthy enough for an article on Wikipedia. Said subject is only taught in one school. Torrent01 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted by Eastmain (talk · contribs · count) using the {{afd2}} template. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informatics practices to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informatics Practices (capital P) to match original article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence that this is a generally recognised category. Searches for sources indicate that the expression is entirely or almost entirely restricted to one high school exam syllabus (though my impression is that it is an exam taken by a number of schools, rather than just one school). In any case there does not seem to be substantial coverage (if any coverage) of it as a subject in its own right, as opposed to just the title of that school syllabus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Incidentally, I am puzzled as to why Torrent01 has created this AfD, since he or she removed a PROD to do so. If he/she thinks that the article should be deleted then why not just leave the PROD in place? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually this subject seems to be a standard part of Indian curriculum for computer science. Google search shows 175,000 hits, with another 11,000 for the singular "Informatic Practices" including non-Indian articles [56]. So it's clearly not taught at just one high school. Two high schools with WP articles link to the page: St. Norbert School Indore and The Abu Dhabi Indian School ‎ —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original PROD was many years old (2009!), and I figured that re-tagging it as a plain old AFD would make more sense, as well as give the situation more attention. Torrent01 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Torrent01: You must have misread something. The PROD dated from 13:55, 7 August 2018‎, and the article was in fact only created on 26 July 2018‎ . The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Computer science as a subfield without the coverage to support another article. It would basically be a content fork, too, since as far as I can see (having read a bunch of syllabi) it's a large subset of computer science. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Computer science both due to lack of sufficient sourcing (though it just seems like it's not suitably written about - it's obviously very active) but it more reads like a sub-set of CS as noted above. I would certainly think it's possible for this to break into a legitimate contentfork article at some point, and potentially it's own article if differences can be indicated as sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Passes WP:V, not WP:GNG (info is good, can't be its own article). Redditaddict6 9 19:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FonePlus

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

Looks like it was upcoming in 2006, but was never released or renamed or something. External link is no longer valid. Fuddle (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Fuddle: I added two references for the technology demonstration in 2006, which I think are enough to establish notability. If the project was abandoned or merged into another, it is still notable because of the coverage in 2006. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That'll do. Is there a mechanism for changing 'Upcoming products' to 'Never gonna happen'? Fuddle (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NPRODUCT; significant RS coverage not found. Being demonstrated at a one-off event is an insufficient claim of significance & the sources offered do not amount to WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a proof-of-concept briefly demonstrated in July 2006. The PC Mag item notes that "Microsoft has been dabbling with a number of different platforms with which it is hoping to attract potential first-time and/or less affluent users." (Another proposal from the same period was Microsoft FlexGo.) Arguably non-products could be listed and placed in context in a section on sector initiative pitches in the Microsoft article, though at risk of detracting from actual products and acquisitions there. However, a trailer is not the main feature, and I am seeing nothing to indicate WP:NPRODUCT - WP:GNG notability here. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The Microsoft reference is not independent, and the PCMag and Engadget references do not provide significant coverage of the product. Sources outside of the article are no better. — Newslinger talk 13:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless other sources are found that this is a current project. Otherwise this is just an article about a plan from 12 years ago. Redditaddict6 9 19:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition, reasonable arguments. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi Fakhimi

AfDs for this article:

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

A close look at sources on the page combine my searches to indicate that he fails WP:SIGCOV . Subject does not qualify for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Orientls (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 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. Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pin Pan Alley

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

Not taking to PROD because operating "numerous" arcades is a plausible claim to notability, but I wasn't able to find sources to support WP:GNG (with or without WP:ORGDEPTH considerations) or to expand the article beyond its current state. The only source given is to a picture of a token from one of the arcades. Tagged for notability since 2010. › Mortee _talk 00:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete: This article is vastly vague. It seems to me that the subject might be of notability during its prime but if there are no sound sources to lead the article towards firm notability, then there isn't any point of leaving a stub. EROS ^message 15:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The sources in the article are just tangential mentions that prove that it exists, and a quick search found nothing of depth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, having dug through all the Newspapers.com hits (some OCR errors, a lot of small advertisements, 'help wanted' ads) I did find one non-bare mention: an article about the rise of arcade games w.r.t. a Chuck E. Cheese and a Pin Pan Alley in Lansing, Michigan. I don't think it rises to the level of notability, but I've added it to the article and I'm mentioning it here in case it does change anyone's vote. › Mortee _talk 23:05, 9 August 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 Bachelor Girls. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Makan

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

Non notable filmmaker, fails WP:DIRECTOR Act345 16:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.[57][58] Orientls (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pass WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG per above. Has received international coverage. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Accesscrawl (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC.[59][60] cbratbyrudd (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The keep !votes are based on two interviews – [61] & [62] – which contain around four independent lines about her. She has given other interviews as well. And it seems that all of them are related to the promotion of her documentary Bachelor Girls, although I haven't searched about her properly yet. As of now, I don't see any independent, in-depth coverage about her. Hopefully the AfD will get relisted so that we can discuss her notability. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with NitinMlk. All the sources given are legitimately sound but it all targets her film, Bachelor Girl and not herself. I feel that the article has yet to mature and I suggest moving into draftspace for the time being, to wait till it is well developed instead of being deleted. Subject seems to have the potential of growing in the future. EROS ^message 15:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree that the subject might become notable in the future, but, as of now, they are nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. So, as I explained below, redirect seems like the appropriate choice here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I just checked online sources about her exhaustively. She has given many interviews in regard to Bachelor Girls, but I couldn't find any independent source about her. Even among the interviews, only three sources – Hindustan Times, Economic Times, & Daily Pakistan – give some details about her. As all of the three sources have provided the same information in different ways, I am quoting Hindustan Times here:

"Makan, who has a degree in psychology and was a research student and an RJ in Delhi, spent the next few years assisting on various documentaries and directing ad films. After making her debut with an experimental short film — Linger (2012) — which travelled to film festivals, Makan decided to make Bachelor Girls, a documentary on the bias towards unmarried women in housing societies."

I have also searched Hindi newspapers, but could find only one passing mention – Deutsche Welle. So we have around four lines of relevant coverage about her, which is nowhere close to what we need for a standalone article. Having said that, there is a valid alternative to deletion for the page. It can be redirected to Bachelor Girls, where she is already mentioned. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not about how much a source has written, but that independent source has written. In that case you have got it all wrong. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the relevant information about WP:GNG in the AfD of your another article, but it seems that you didn't read it. So I am quoting it again here:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. .... "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.

As you can see clearly from the guideline, we need independent & in-depth coverage, so that we can have enough material for an NPOV-based stand-alone article.

If there isn't enough coverage about the topic, then we try to find an alternative for deletion. As there isn't any mergeworthy content in the present stub, we are left with the choice of redirecting it to the subject's documentary article. BTW, as she hasn't received any independent coverage yet, and all of her interviews are basically in the context of her documentary, you can add a Background section in the documentary's article, which can explain her reasons behind creating that documentary. And the above page will serve as a good search aid till she receives enough independent coverage.

Finally, we can draftify it. But the draft will either get deleted after few months (as 4-5 lines aren't enough for a standalone article), or it will be moved back to the mainspace. In the first scenario, we will lose a valuable redirect, and in the second scenario, we will be back to its AfD, which will be total waste of time. So, best solution here is to keep it as a redirect till the subject gets healthy amount of independent coverage. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And in which place of earth this is not "significant"? Accesscrawl (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already discussed this in my previous comments, but I guess you didn't read them carefully. Anyway, the source provided by you has already been discussed by me in one of my previous comments here – [63]. In fact, I've already quoted the four relevant lines from it. Everything else in it is about the documentary & the details relevant to that. That's why I previously mentioned: as "all of her interviews are basically in the context of her documentary, you can add a Background section in the documentary's article, which can explain her reasons behind creating that documentary." - NitinMlk (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above showing the significant coverage of the subject in third party reliable references. I think it meets WP:GNG. Onkuchia (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Interviews given to promote one's documentary aren't considered "third party" sources. Also, please provide sources which have "significant coverage of the subject", as I am unable to find one. BTW, by subject I mean the subject of this AfD, not the subject's documentary. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bachelor Girls, as per WP:ATD. As of now, the subject hasn't received any independent & in-depth coverage, thereby failing WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. All we have are her interviews, which discuss the subject in passing while entirely focusing on her documentary or some other topic. So the page should be redirected to her documentary, as it is a valid search term. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:40, 13 August 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.