Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 June	15 June >

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers

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

This list only has six entries, which is usually not considered to be enough for a standalone list. Furthermore, the list itself doesn't add anything to the encyclopaedia that couldn't be included at Green Bay Packers. – Pee Jay 06:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason, the list containing even fewer entries:[reply]

Delete Already covered in the List of National Football League retired numbers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the retired numbers are also in Green Bay Packers#Retired numbers. Whatever additional information there may be in List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers should be included in Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame instead of a separate list. PK T(alk) 11:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retired numbers and the hall of fame are independent topics. What is the rationale for co-mingling them?—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, the general information is covered in the main articles, the minor details aren't really needed and alone the subjects aren't notable. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See WP:SALAT, WP:LISTCRITERIA, and WP:LISTPEOPLE for policies and guidelines regarding standalone lists. The basic guidelines include: a defined membership, notable people make up the list, and the list is discussed in reliable sources. The main reasons listed to delete are that the list is not long enough and that it can be included in the larger article. From what I can see, neither of these are established in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The list is clearly defined (if the Packers have formally retired a number), made up of notable people (all professional football players with extensive careers and accolades), and is discussed in reliable sources as a cohesive list (see Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, USA Today, ESPN just to name a few). This list needs to be expanded and improved, but that is never a reason to delete an article. This list should expand on various things that wouldn't be included in the Green Bay Packers article, including backgrounds on each player, why the organization decided to retire their number, discussion about unofficial retired numbers, and the addition of future retired numbers. The Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame is a completely different topic and would not be appropriate for the list of retired numbers. It appears that none of the delete votes are rooted in any policies or guidelines, and just comes down to the article not being good enough at this time. Note to the closing admin that deletion discussions should be based on adherence to policy before determining consensus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My delete vote wasn't about it being too short or belonging in the main article, it was about it not being notable by itself. Your criterias listed are all fine for list in Wikipedia articles, but for a list to have it's own page it still needs to be notable. WP:LISTN is the policy I would refer to. From the sources you provided, two are about Paul Hornung, and one is about Brett Farve. They all do mention and list the retired numbers but they are not discussing that list or group of players specifically. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the sources do not need to be only about the list itself, but has to have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. As you just said, the list has been discussed as a defined group by independent reliable sources. The whole list is mentioned every time a new member is added. I guess I am not understanding the reasoning of this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I had/have a different understanding of the policy and general rules for notability. I've always thought that if it's just a passing mention of it in a source, it wouldn't qualify towards notability for a list or a general article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers Meets WP:LISTN, as it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The significant Chargers specific prose currently in the list is not in List of National Football League retired numbers, nor should it be. It is also not in Los Angeles Chargers, which is in line with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up an interesting point, List of National Football League retired numbers is not a topic usually discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Most sources only address specific teams and their retired numbers. There really isn't any connection between different teams retired numbers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as a content fork of a main article where the content already exists. Ajf773 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Los_Angeles_Chargers#Retired_numbers is a small subset of Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers, not a recopy or a POV fork.—Bagumba (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ¶ This is a list of employees who received special recognition by the company for which they worked (and two other employees who did not). Only citations two and five—both primary sources—discuss those listed (the former lists five people, the latter four). Two primary sources do not an article make, and can easily be folded into the parent company's article if editors there deem it appropriate. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 2 and 5 of Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers are not primary sources.—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know; I was referring to this version of the article for which this nomination is titled: list of Green Bay Packers retired numbers. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name of this nomination is confusing, because it added Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers afterwards. So you don't have an opinion on whether the 28 sources in the Chargers article meets LISTN?—Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I followed the instructions at WP:AfD on how to create a multi-article nomination and this is what came up. I'm sorry for any confusion caused, but yes, the Chargers article is nominated for deletion under the same criteria as the Packers one – there is nothing in it that couldn't conceivably be merged into the Chargers main article. – Pee Jay 20:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay2K3: But why bloat the team article with the additional prose from Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers? This is standard WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to put the details in another article. While diehard fans already know the individual players, the prose gives the casual reader a high level overview on each player and the team's history of retiring numbers without having to click on the individual players in the list for details.—Bagumba (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: Yes, you did follow the AfD instructions correctly. I had thought the title should be more meaningful like with multiple nominations at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, and not just use the first page as the title. Unfortunately, the instructions are inconsistent across domains. Go figure.—Bagumba (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a close assumption, but the truth is broader: I have no opinion on that second article whatsoever. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to sources mentioned by Gonzo fan2007, there is also "Green Bay Packers retired numbers, hall of fame classes". Journal Sentinel. July 16, 2015.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Lugnuts. Already covered in one big list (and elsewhere): no need for these two and 20+ more. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirect List of National Football League retired numbers to Lists of National Football League retired numbers and create lists for the rest of the teams that retire numbers. WP:LISTPEOPLE is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers too Enough sources mentioned above to meet WP:LISTN. Sure there is little prose in the Green Bay list currently, but enough sources exists where it could be expanded and the page would be in line with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE like Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Bay Packers and Los Angeles Chargers respectively. This page duplicates information found elsewhere. If the New York Yankees don't need a separate article for retired numbers (they have 21), then clearly no other team does either.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is generally not a compelling argument. The text at New York Yankees#Retired numbers should be spun out WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to a separate article that easily meets WP:LISTN. Also, take another look at Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers, as it has more information than is at Los Angeles Chargers#Retired numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Yankees retired numbers are covered by the Monument Park (Yankee Stadium) article. Spinning out another article just for their retired numbers would be redundant and duplicative. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Yankees do seem like a unique case. That aside, I do see from your !vote below that you generally agree that team-specific retired number lists can meet LISTN and be standalone lists.—Bagumba (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consider that Category:National Football League retired number navigational boxes contains many navboxes for teams' retired numbers, which are considered a very high honor. Per WP:NAVBOX No. 1: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. I don't think we want navboxes that are based off of sections of articles, which only invites more WP:NAVBOXCREEP.—Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for creation of the templates is that there should be an article on the subject. That does not mean that there needs to be an article if there is a template. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Similar team lists For point of comparison, there are also similar lists of honorees at Category:American football museums and halls of fame and Category:Major League Baseball museums and halls of fame. Those members are also enumerated in their respective team articles.—Bagumba (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A team can retire numbers and that makes for a notable subject per WP:NLIST. Some of the comments I see above, like those of User:Fourthords, are addressable by adding more sources that do exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should do away with List of National Football League retired numbers, then, and simply have lists for each of the 32 teams (possibly more if now-defunct teams once retired some of their numbers). – PeeJay 14:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "List of National Football League retired numbers" is still a valid search term. If retired number lists existed for each respective team, we could just covert the NFL list to be a disambiguation page containing a link to the 32 individual team lists.—Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have recently expanded the article significantly and added many sources. Again, the Packers list their retired numbers on their website and have a physical sign in their stadium highlighting this. There are a significant number of sources that note this group as a uniquely identifiable group with a defined membership of notable people. Multiple reliable sources mention the number retirement ceremonies and the notability of the entire group. Brett Favre's recent retirement ceremony, which was covered nationally in various news agencies should be enough to justify. There is also discussion in sources about future expansion from three different players that may be retired at some point. I am not sure how much more it can be made clear that this article now meets all WP policies and guidelines, in my opinion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The narrative portion of the Green Bay list has now been expanded to provide appropriate contextual information, and there is sufficient coverage of each team's retired numbers (as a cohesive topic) to satisfy WP:LISTN. Cbl62 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cbl62: You may have missed it, but as this was a joint AfD nomination with Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers, I assume you are also fine with keeping it since it is also well-sourced?—Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my vote is to keep both on grounds that there is sufficient coverage of "each team's retired numbers" as a cohesive topic to satisfy LISTN. Cbl62 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 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. So Why 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Hammadeh (lawyer)

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

Being a lawyer for a powerful company does not make a person notable. Notability is not inherited. 2Joules (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can't vote for deletion at present, but I see the signs of a promotional intent. Deb (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:AUTHOR; lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Just a promotional CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A run-of-the-mill lawyer who doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Reads like a resume. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:02, 29 June 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 18:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malek Sitez

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

Non notable "expert". A promotional mishmash article that is borderline CSD worthy. There are enough peacocks used to prop this up to fill a large zoo. For an expert he is a very low tendency to appear in the new; I could find only 6 mentions. 2Joules (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is not unknown in Danish media as an expert on Afghanistan ("Malek Sitez" site:.dk) but there is a definitive lack of significant coverage about him, hence GNG/BASIC is not met and for now it is delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 11:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 14 June 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 Before renominating, consider merging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah as an alternative per WP:ATD. So Why 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layton Utah Temple

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. 2Joules (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom may be unaware that we do have articles on Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:E.M.Gregory I am aware of the category. My concern was that at present we are not even aware of the location of the building. The only information is that the mayor knows the location, and he may divulge it in the future. That is why I wanted to remove this until at least the location and other information is known. 2Joules (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a news article about the site to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn’t really about speculation or rumormongering. The church announced its building a temple there so it’s going to happen in all likelihood. If the standard is to wait until ground is broken or they start going vertical, I guess that’s fine. But I would beef up the refs, especially as a couple are dead. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources are primary and article is WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice on recreation in the future. SportingFlyer talk 23:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We could move it to Proposed Layton Utah Temple for the nonce, and move it back to Layton Utah Temple after the dedication. The fact is that all Mormon Temples can be sourced to meet WP:SIGCOV. There will be WP:RS coverage of the location, of the construction, of the pre-opening opportunity for non-Mormons to visit, of the dedication and of the Temple going forward - there always is. There is alreay local TV coverage of speculation about exactly where it will be located; the Mayor says that the Church has already bought the land and he knows where it is but he's not telling. I have met Mormon temples before at AfD and, well, they can always be sourced, they just can. It is simply more efficient to KEEP the article and let it grow along with the temple. And it is better for the project to keep an article on a major church that people will expect us to have an article about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing the article won't be able to be sourced if a location is announced - but in order to pass WP:GEOFEAT it needs the classic require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. All we have now is the announcement (which has gotten some coverage) which may also violate WP:NOTNEWS. Best to follow procedure here and wait until a location is announced/construction starts. SportingFlyer talk 19:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft-ify until the specific location is public; I don't see how WP:GEOFEAT can apply at this stage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have properly sourced the article. I suppose we could draftify, but it seems more user-friendly to just keep it. There really is no doubt that a Mormon temple will be notable, and, if they cancel it, will be extremely notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it would be reasonable as well; as you say it will definitely be notable one way or another in a few year's time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:19, 21 June 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 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Hartman

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

Notability is not inherited. As a person the subject is not notable enough, his company may be notable (and has an article on wikipedia already), but this does not automatically make him pass GNG. 2Joules (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I wrote in my prod (which someone removed without making any improvements), the cited sources fail to provide any significant or in-depth coverage of the subject. A company may be notable, but not necessarily the founder. I have to say also that the creator looks suspiciously like they've been here before under a different username, by having the knowledge to game the system by making 10 minor edits in quick succession for the purpose of becoming autoconfirmed so that a well-formed article could be created. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 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. So Why 13:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steeleye

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

Non notable company created last year. There may be COI issues here as well. 2Joules (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Clearly WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable corporation, lack of significant coverage. Some of the material sounds promotional. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:05, 29 June 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 Rio Rancho Public Schools. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Rancho Cyber Academy

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

I know that schools get a free pass, but I don't think that non notable online schools get the same treatment. 2Joules (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This venture features in a 2012 Technological Horizons In Education article ([1] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), though not as the main subject of the article, and there is also some coverage here but a GDPR-block prevents its evaluation. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a small alternative school (158 students), but a secondary school (grades 6-12) nevertheless. [2] If there's nothing else to say beside that it exists, then Redirect to Rio Rancho Public Schools which is the district article. It's an actual school though, with a building. Here's a news article about the district [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks to fail GNG, and there's no content in the article to save for crying out loud (an unsourced statement that it exists, full stop... is there really no CSD for that?). If people are intent on having WP:LINKFARM/WP:DIRECTORY pages like Rio Rancho Public Schools that list this, then I guess redirect. Basically just using Wikipedia to link people to an organization's website, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rio Rancho Public Schools - Valid search term, Redirectsarecheap and all that. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rio Rancho Public Schools#High schools - Useful search term. No valid reason to delete rather than redirect has been given. There is sourced material that can be added to the target article. Just Chilling (talk) 18:13, 26 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nash Paints

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

Run of the mill local paint company. Not notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I first saw this article, it was completely unsourced. Since then, sources have been added. The question is, are the sources sufficient to meet WP:CORP? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Anachronist I just checked the sources. They are local news outlets where news liek this is common everyday fodder. Nothing to push it over GNG. 2Joules (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the problem. NewsDay (Zimbabwean newspaper) and The Standard (Zimbabwe) look more like national news outlets — or at least they are both published by a large news organization. Zimbabwe is a small-ish country, about the size of California area-wise, so "local" and "national" might be basically the same thing. WP:CORP requires sources of at least regional, or national scope. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Anachronist Yes. I think that is part of the problem, a company like this will never get even a trivial mention in the US but it might be worthy of mention in daily news in a place like zimbabwe where large organization have to find something to publish. However, even in this situation, the company got only 4-5 mentions, so I don't think that it can pass WP:CORP 2Joules (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first three citations give significant coverage, more than mentions, so technically the subject complies with WP:CORP. But I agree also, a company like this in the United States would likely not merit an article. Unfortunately our policies and guidelines don't account for scale. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage by national newspapers in Zimbabwe. Significant for offering painting services on credit unlike most paint manufacturers, although that text from an earlier version has now been edited out. A company can be both unexciting and notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like watching paint dry? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Hurungudo (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC) The company looks notable enough and have also added some controversies associated.[reply]
Weak keep while holding my nose. Technically it meets WP:CORP as I commented above, but this company wouldn't merit an article if it were in the United States with similar coverage. AFD isn't the place to refine our inclusion criteria, however, so at this time it seems we don't have grounds for deletion based on existing policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on existing sources - I also disagree with the description "local" given that they apparently have branches all over the country. The "controversy" section which has been added gives a different perspective - it was a bit repetitive so I have pruned it, but it seems to merit inclusion in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 20 June 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 Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows. Consensus is that the book is notable, but the author not. Sandstein 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Leigh

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

I see no evidence that this person has coverage in reliable sources, by way of reviews or otherwise. Most of the sources in the article are either unreliable, questionably reliable or primary and not coverage. (a lot of blogs.) Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see wp:NAUTHOR - 2 reviews here [4]; [5]. Marthadandridge (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows - I have listed some of her honors and distinctions in the article, and have documented two (favourable, as it happens) reviews of her work, there are more out there so her book is the notable topic. I see no evidence that nom has paid any attention to WP:BEFORE, or has understood that notability is measured by reality out there in the world, not by what is or is not already in the article. The sources that are there, by the way, include some blogs by staff of poetry magazines and other reliable institutions; these are perfectly satisfactory sources. This fine poet is well known in American poetry circles and has written and appeared in more than enough places to pass the GNG quite easily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well known in a circle doesn't make someone notable. I disagree about the blogs, particularly in the absence of coverage in other reliable sources. Someone's blogspot is totally meaningless, as is a website review that accepts submissions specifically from the writers. Please indicate which of the awards and honors are notable because a list of awards that aren't notable is meaningless. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, winning prizes and being made editor of different magazines indicates prominence in her field, just as those things would in a scientist or engineer or lawyer. Scientific notability, for instance, derives entirely from being cited by other scientists, i.e. exactly "in a circle", that is precisely how notability works in a profession; the same goes for notability in law, or medicine, so it isn't something special to poetry. Personal blogs would not be reliable sources, but that is just a smokescreen here: WP:RS is quite clear that institutional ones can be relied upon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please provide actual RS that support this because right now the sources breakdown like this:

So what of these is the hard and fast proof of notability as covered in reliable sources? I'll take your comparison to other professions and say that if this were an engineer, we'd require them to be widely cited or otherwise covered in verifiable sources which are also reliable. A bunch of bloggers writing about them wouldn't cut it. This is, at best an overly fluffed vanity piece. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally hesitate to respond to anyone arguing in that tone, and would ask that language like "a bunch of bloggers" be withdrawn as discourteous and inappropriate at AfD. As for "overfluffed vanity piece", that cannot be so as I'm not the poet and it doesn't look as if the article's creator is either: she started the article as part of the Women in Red initiative.

However, since the use that I and the article's creator have made of these sources is modest and straightforward, I will make an exception, assuming good faith and in the hope that we may resolve this matter rationally.

I've added another review, in the unchallengeably authoritative American Book Review. I think we have "multiple reliable sources" here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows and repurpose. The book has been reviewed numerous times, including in reliable sources such as American Book Review. The author has received little to no coverage in reliable sources beyond reviews of that one book whose reception already forms about 80% of the article's content. The book seems notable enough; the author doesn't. Huon (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would work fine, the small amount of author bio then serving as brief context for the book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the dissenting opinion again, but I'm not sure that I agree that the single review in that source qualifies the work or the author as being notable. And to address Chiswick's edit, again, Goodreads is not a reliable source for the same reason imdb and Wikipedia are not: it can be edited by anyone and your claim that there isn't any doubt is incorrect but it's also not a notable award. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "Chiswick Chap", thanks. Methinks thou dost protest too much. There are multiple reliable sources for the book. The statement that Leigh won the prize is multiply sourced also, so we needn't rely on GoodReads' word for it, though they are certainly correct on this simple matter of fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more who cares if she won a prize? I won my 5th grade spelling bee and several others after that as well as several photography prizes throughout high school and college. They all have names and there are published articles about them. None of them are notable. That was my point. And there are tons of sources, sure, but none which are in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Also kind of ironic you chide me for "protesting too much" all the while accusing me of basically being uncivil for calling a blogger a blogger. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely had no business messing with my username, for which you have not so far apologized. The prizes and magazines are exactly the ones that are significant in American poetry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap Perhaps you can clarify, how did I "mess with your username"? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you divided it innocently. FYI, it's indivisible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salvage content for Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: it seems that TonyTheTiger is !voting for MOVE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (totally offtopic), i dont mind being referred to as "coola":)) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for authors is not about what they write but what others write about them. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. Blogs about the author really don't count, awards which aren't of themselves notable also don't count. Ifnord (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've more or less agreed it's a book article (to be renamed), and review blogs by poetry magazines and other poets certainly contribute to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs by individual poets most certainly do not contribute to notability, please see WP:RELIABLE. A review by an established magazine would, but its blog is questionable. Ifnord (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

umm, not quite correct Ifnord, having a look at WP:UGC under "Exceptions", we see "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", so if the poet is mega notable their blog would probably be ok. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The blog of the "mega poet" is cited as a source simply to "support the claim that she edited Kartika Review." -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree, btw i wasnt saying any of the cited blogs are by a "mega poet". Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows (remove the redirect), that is notable (ie. multiple reviews), and rewrite accordingly. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The quality of sourcing doesn't look much convincing and this needs more eyes.....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of substantial evidence of independent notability. I find time for blogs but I have not time for blogs. [Blogs are] largely not acceptable [as sources], the book says. Alternatively, Merge into the bloody sparrows. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternatively, Merge into the bloody sparrows." - when The Gnome regrets reading through the AfD.

Unsigned comment by Nosebagbear.

Rename (that you call merge) to Sparrows is clearly the sensible option. The only personal blog, and one that the article barely relies on, is from the Ottawa poet Michael Dennis, described by Open Book Ontario as "during the 1980s, easily the most published poet in Ottawa, with poems in several hundred magazines and journals." We are quite entitled to use authoritative opinion such as of well-known poets to comment on other poets. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Blood, Sparrows and Sparrows - The article has scant information about the author, but rather seems to be constructed as a book. Go with that, and add a banner for WP:BOOKS — Maile (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 14 June 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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abea

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

Article makes mention of award but no significant coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and doesn't meet WP:RS Edidiong (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is indeed "the oldest olive-oil maker" in Greece, it should have mentions aplenty at least in the Greek media. A search there, with the help of some tools, reveals almost nothing except routine mentions in lists, etc, showing essentially that the company exists and is active. It seems all we have are primary sources. -The Gnome (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable, historical industry of Crete. It is an important part of the industrial history of Crete and the urban development of Chania; see this article in the website of local daily of Chania, el:Χανιώτικα Νέα; also this (@ Crete News.gr). About the importance of the present day company in Crete -with a short glance in its history- see this article, published in the Greek mainstream daily Eλευθεροτυπία. ——Chalk19 (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, Chalk19, why not add those sources to the article? See below for more. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I love how those !voting keep because of historical or other reasons, and supplying sources here at AFD, would not be more beneficial to just supply those sources on the article, and then !voting "Keep" because of notability sources now on the article. I am stating this because I have seen several instances when "delete !votes" are advised to find sources and improve the article. It seems this would be a two way street. Otr500 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that, in some such cases, the editors who suggest Deletion are advised to WP:FIXIT. Which is actually the policy about "being bold" in Wikipedia editing, under a different title. In reality, the admonition to boldly improve an article loses currency when we're going through an AfD process. Improving the contested article and, if possible, stopping the process is rather up to those who are suggesting Keep. As to the much suffering WP:BEFORE, that's an obligation of the nominator; not of AfD participants. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as it stands now. Feel free to ping me if anyone adds some good references and I will happily look at it again. Ifnord (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reformed the article. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is notable in Greek region, not sure about the authenticity of these resources on EN Wikipedia. Mia Watson (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an historic company. We've usually been much less restrictive here with just-founded embryonic firms. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the "oldest olive oil processing plant" in a given country is a tenuous but sufficient claim of significance in my mind. Sources are okay. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on account of subject's history and position in its field, though that is barely passably documented. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 27 June 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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 D.C. United Women season

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

PRODed the article, with the reason being "season that fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG", which was removed. Stated reason was "League was basically professional by this point, meets NSEASONS". I don't know if there's a separate consensus for this league but it isn't included in WP:FPL, so I'm not clear as to how/why this meets WP:NSEASONS. With the only citation listed being the standings from that season, WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. Jay eyem (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per contested PROD. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quidster4040: - please don't just cite the prod, since everyone else doesn't have it immediately to hand and it makes it tricky to discuss it and use it to justify your !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Refs added. Hmlarson (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really sure how WP:GNG is satisfied from these sources. ~~Pretty much~~ Almost all of the new sources constitute WP:ROUTINE (specifically sources 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7). The Sauerbrunn signing and the name change wouldn't be routine, but I don't see how they indicate notability of this season. Jay eyem (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For me, the fact a number of routine sources from major publications exist show that routine coverage of the season existed, thereby making it notable "by the sum of its parts." I'd make a different argument for almost every other type of article on Wikipedia, but a sports season shouldn't need multiple feature articles to be notable - continuous routine coverage should be fine. SportingFlyer talk 19:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I really do not understand this argument. WP:FOOTY already has an absurdly low bar regarding assumed notability, and the notion that you can string together multiple instances of routine coverage to create assumed notability sounds like original research and synthesis to me. Jay eyem (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't quite meet GNG, with sources like this appearing positive but actually being upsettingly brief. If @Hmlarson: can find one or two more then I'll be happy to change my mind... Giant Snowman 09:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources provided, and probably NSEASONS too, per my de-PROD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should GNG apply? The seasons page basically fails WP:NSEASONS as club did not play in a fully-pro league. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge the keep per WP:GNG, merge to 2012 D.C. United season. I just re-read WP:NSEASONS which doesn't preclude seasons for teams in not top professional leagues from having season articles. It just means they have to pass WP:GNG, whereas a top professional league would be presumed to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 19:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as with the other AfD, I particularly oppose merging due to the nuanced nature of the ownership and intellectual property concerns involved. The team only has a loose affiliation with the MLS franchise D.C. United, and does not belong in its season article. Jay eyem (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nom~~ Comment I maintain that deletion is the correct decision here. Those arguing in favor of keep are by and large not explaining how the sources demonstrate WP:GNG. The one argument that does try to explain how it meets GNG is essentially a WP:SYNTH argument, i.e. that numerous instances of routine coverage somehow makes the subject inherently meet GNG. Most of the sources are routine coverage and the sources that aren't don't actually demonstrate notability of the season itself. The season fails WP:NSEASONS's presumption of notability because the team did not play in a fully-professional league as listed at WP:FPL. The proposal to merge to the relevant MLS team season would also be a poor decision because, despite sharing the same name as the MLS team, the teams do not share any ownership and only have a very loose affiliation. While there may not be as much of a precedent for women's seasons that fail WP:NSEASONS, there is an extensive precedent for men's seasons in the same situation being deleted (some examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). I just don't see how the article in its current state can reasonably be argued as keep. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the nominator. You can't !vote again. You're free to comment, but please strike your second !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I stated in the other AfD, AfDs are not a vote, so it doesn't make a difference if I "vote" twice since it is my arguments that make a difference. Also, the AfD was relisted, so its entirely appropriate to re-emphasize my points. I will make it more clear that I am the nominator, but I'm not striking the entire comment. Jay eyem (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to strike the whole comment, I'm just asking you to strike the bolded delete !vote as you already !voted. You are, of course, free to comment again, but not to !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This literally does not make a difference, but I'll do so. Jay eyem (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:22, 17 June 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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011 D.C. United Women season

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

Proposing this alongside the other AfD for the same reasons. Team season that fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Sources listed are standings, a roster, and a few post-season awards, which don't demonstrate WP:GNG for the season. Fails WP:NSEASONS as the league not listed under WP:FPL so team seasons within that league aren't assumed to be notable. Jay eyem (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Refs added. See also: 2012 D.C. United Women season. Hmlarson (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the SoccerWire reference is better, but I don't see how the other sources added address the WP:GNG concerns. Two of them are routine coverage (Boston.com and Washington Spirit sources, the latter of which is also WP:PRIMARY). The Washington Post article relegates this season to a footnote at the end of its article, so I don't see how that helps either. Jay eyem (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing important about this season, so no coverage. Giant Snowman 09:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the sources and probably NSEASONS as well. Smartyllama (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS at all, the club didn't play in a fully-pro league. The first citation has one line about the club and doesn't address anything other than who they play their first game. The second citation addresses the club and not the season. One citation has a game report and the rest are WP:ROUTINE, after analysing all together this seems a clear failure for WP:GNG towards a season article. Govvy (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the keep per WP:GNG and the merge target to 2011 D.C. United Season (we do similar things with aussie rules articles if I remember correctly with the men's and women's season on the same page). SportingFlyer talk 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will say, due to the weird nature of how the ownership works and the intellectual property concerns in this particular situation, I particularly oppose a merge. Even though they use the name, it's not run by the same organization, and thus I don't think it should be merged into the 2011 D.C. United season. Jay eyem (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nom~~ Comment I maintain that deletion is the correct decision here. Those arguing in favor of keep are not explaining how the sources demonstrate WP:GNG. Most of the sources are routine coverage and the sources that aren't don't actually demonstrate notability of the season itself. The season fails WP:NSEASONS's presumption of notability because the team did not play in a fully-professional league as listed at WP:FPL. The proposal to merge to the relevant MLS team season would also be a poor decision because, despite sharing the same name as the MLS team, the teams do not share any ownership and only have a very loose affiliation. While there may not be as much of a precedent for women's seasons that fail WP:NSEASONS, there is an extensive precedent for men's seasons in the same situation being deleted (some examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). I just don't see how the article in its current state can reasonably be argued as keep. Jay eyem (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've already voted as the nominator, you don't get to vote again. Season notability is shown by ongoing coverage, as it's an event which takes place over a period of time. It's difficult to find non-routine articles about a sports season. And they do exist, and in a variety of different sources. [6] This is easily sourced, even if other teams may not be, and I maintain keeping or merging this information is proper. SportingFlyer talk 19:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was relisted for a more full discussion, and AfDs are not a vote, so it doesn't really make a difference if I "vote again". If in-depth coverage exists of these team seasons that are not assumed to meet WP:NSEASONS by playing in a fully professional league, then this needs to be demonstrated. Thus far, it has not been demonstrated (especially not the source you just provided, announcing a new assistant coach does nothing to establish the notability of this season), and using synthesis to combine a bunch of non-notable routine coverage to create assumed notability to meet WP:GNG is absurd. Did you look at the eight different examples of precedent that I provided that were almost the exact same situation? And you haven't even addressed why the specific merging you are suggesting is improper due to the nature of the ownership and intellectual property issues involved. I have no problem merging it to "D.C. United Women", but they absolutely should not be merged with the relevant D.C. United season articles. Jay eyem (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment usually that means other users who have not seen the discussion get the right to add to the consensus. It does make a difference because it looks like you're trying to swing the discussion towards your delete vote. I have no idea what would constitute non-routine coverage for a season. Numerous secondary sources reported on both this season and the 2012 season. Also, your eight precedents (three are red links) do not actually create precedent for this article: if an WP:NSEASON article can pass WP:GNG, it should be kept, even if the season isn't fully professional: it does not override WP:GNG. None of the links you provided mention that. At the very least this needs to be redirected. I still think a merge is proper so we don't lose the information. SportingFlyer talk 23:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, it is not a vote, so it is my arguments that are important rather than the "delete vote" or my "swing[ing] the discussion". And again, the precedent absolutely applies because its precisely the same situation as the others: None of the sources provided in this article offer significant and non-routine coverage, so it fails WP:GNG (how announcing an assistant coach is supposed to establish notability for this season is beyond me). And yes three are redlinks because they were PRODed and deleted precisely because they failed WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS, and they apply because they were team seasons for teams that played in a non-fully professional league, thus do not pass that assumption of notability, and had inadequate sourcing like this one. You, and others in this thread, still have not explained how these "numerous sources" qualify this season for WP:GNG or why your proposed merger is inappropriate. A merge or redirect to D.C. United Women is fine, a merge to 2011 D.C. United season absolutely is not. Jay eyem (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course free to comment again, but not to !vote. Once again, please strike your bolded delete !vote. You are free to leave the rest of the comment but please don't WP:BADGER anyone. Smartyllama (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated, there are articles in reliable news publications which constitute continual professional coverage of the season. You keep saying WP:GNG isn't met, but I have no idea what you think the test for passing WP:GNG for a continuing event would be. Also, this is the first time I've ever seen an AfD nominator make an argument immediately following a relist. I'm not saying you're not allowed to, but it does go against norms, and I would please ask you to strike your vote. SportingFlyer talk 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would oppose a merge with the DC United article per Jay eyem even if his double !voting is entirely inappropriate. The clubs have no connection. It's not an appropriate target. Smartyllama (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This literally does not make a difference, but I've stricken it and replaced it with a "comment". And for the record, my asking for clarification and pointing out that points are inadequate are not badgering, since I'm not demanding that anything be done (other than the need for in-depth coverage, which is entirely appropriate for an AfD, and maybe why the first proposed merge had an inappropriate target). Jay eyem (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:21, 17 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Nielsen (entertainer)

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

PROD removed by the creator. Even the author admits that the subject has "otherwise been ignored". If he has been ignored by RS, we should ignore him as well. 2Joules (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page, lacks significant, reliable coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is one of the worst examples of a vanity, unencyclopedic article I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are useless, but I kind of admire someone who includes the quote "The nicest man I've ever met" when writing about himself. Vexations (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jack of all trades, received reliable media coverage for none. This article might as well be in the "About" section at his Facebook page, and maybe it is. Also, instead of describing himself as being ignored, a better self-promoter would describe himself as a behind-the-scenes kind of guy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to work your format yet. I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong. It's written tongue-in-cheek, but it is factual. I don't see why inserting humor takes away from the presentation. "The nicest man I've ever met" is a legit quote from William Moody (Paul Bearer) who was my friend and mentor, who's web site I still operate in his memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plowboykurt (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 June 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. So Why 13:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker Island (video game)

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

This article contains three reviews as references. Of those sources, two of them have a "Submit your game for review" option ([7] [8]). One of which has the following: Submitting your game to Edamame Reviews is a great way to reach a highly targeted audience of iOS and Android gamers and industry influencers who view our site multiple times each day. This quite obviously casts doubt on its reliability and independence of the subject. For these reasons I believe this doesn't satisfy WP:NGAME. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - firstly, disclosure, I am the AfC editor who accepted this article, so obviously there is a degree of bias with that. Hopefully I can make a suitable case despite that.

The article was certainly right on the boundary of getting through, but that was somewhat more because of verificability rather than straight-up notability. Notability for video games is always a nuisance (remember, WP:NGAME is an essay - a good one, but not a supplement. It's primarily GNG that governs it). This is compounded because judging the sources independence is a nuisance. It's not surprising that most game critic sites ask for them - they need a sufficient turnover to survive. Remember all news websites ask for news. This can create both bias (being positive so everyone submits) and non-bias (being independent so users actually come to the site).

My judgement was that Edamame was on the wrong side, while Gamezebo was on the right. I felt this was sufficient (with the Player.One review to prove it was verifiable but I also had a hunt elsewhere to cover notability. , Source 1, Source 2 (needs google translate) Source 3 are the best alternate sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off, I agree with Nosebagbear that this is a somewhat borderline case. But, I think that the Player.One review in combination with the infogame.vn review establishes notability with respect to WP:GNG. Additionally I think that Game Zebo is also a reliable source for this article because in that very page you linked they say "Do not offer to pay for reviews. There is a big, fat line between editorial and advertising here at Gamezebo." I have no reason to believe that they are lying, especially given the tone of the rest of that page. Asking for and receiving game review copies in exchange for the possibility of a review is common practice in video game journalism and doesn't compromise the independence or reliability of the source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The VG/RS search engine (WP:VG/SE) , based on sources identified as reliable for video gaming topics, indicates that this topic probably does not meet the bar for notability, whatever sources have been provided above. Do all of the works provided above indicate that they meet the bar to be identified as reliable? I would guess not. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of points here. Firstly, WP:VG/SE provides a useful list (thanks, I'll refer to it in future) of both inclusions and exclusions - sources 1, 2 and 3 don't appear on either. Meaning that even if you took the list as gospel, you'd still need to come to your own conclusion on each of them. Secondly, I don't need each of them to meet the bar - if we take gamezebo as given since it's on the list and seems reliable by personal inspections from several of us, that only requires one more source. There are 4 in the offing (not counting edamame) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list is mostly drawn from WP:VG/S--the search engine is just useful for using those sources trivially. Indeed, we need to come to a conclusion on the other three sources. As I said (because I have not investigated), I would guess the other three do not meet the reliability bar (based solely on their names--only one has widespread TLD [.com] and that one looks entirely domain specific, sites of which do not often indicate reliability or which indicate unreliability). Now, if Gamezebo is the only source, and the GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources discussing the topic in depth (i.e., reviews or substantial previews), that bar is certainly not met, even including the above sources. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Izno: WP:VG/S explicitly states that "This [sources] list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination" so the fact that a source isn't on that list and doesn't have a standard TLD is enough to judge it unreliable? Player.One is a Newsweek Media Group organization with a professional editorial staff and no indication that it is unreliable as it uses the same editorial practices as the other branches of the Newsweek Group. It is a published, independent authority from its subjects which should be more than sufficiently reliable for the standards of WP:GNG. That in combination with gamezebo, which it seems you agree is a passable source, is sufficient for passing GNG. But just in case, I'll go over the sources.
      - Edamame is unreliable as it accepts money for publishing articles.
      - Pocket Gamer's content is a republished press release
      - Infogame.vn is in Vietnamese which doesn't change the fact that it is a reliable source. It has a professional editorial staff and their advertising policies don't indicate any issues that would interfere with the independence of their reviews.
      - AppCheaters appears to just be a one person blog-like operation
      - Player.One is reliable as discussed above
      - It appears we agree Gamewebo is reliable, as it has editorial oversight and independence
    - That's three reliable sources providing in depth, independent coverage. This is sufficient for passing GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like @Izno: says, it doesn't meet the WP:VG standard. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How so - if Gamezebo, Player.One & Infogame aren't all on the WP:VG list then that is neither a positive or a negative ruling on them. How do those not on the list fail to meet the standard exactly? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep On the VG sources issues, unless we have previously discussed the source and determined it unreliable, not being on the list doesn't mean the source is not reliable; we'd have to evaluate those sources in more depth, but for purposes of an AFD discussion, these one offs can be considered on their own. On the specific game, there does seem to be some minimal coverage, one of the first Kongergate titles for mobile, and some of the mobile-based websites do discuss it. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage but there's enough to give this the benefit of doubt. --Masem (t) 17:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If sources that have been determined to count as reliable sources give it significant coverage, then it meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 19:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough significant coverage for this game to pass WP:GNG. We require significant, reliable coverage in independent sources. Sources mention the game, but that's hardly enough to show it's notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep as technically having multiple reliable independent (somewhat) in-depth sources. The sources cited in the article: JayIsGames is good, if short; GameZebo is okay; Player.one looks good and seems like a good source without a more thorough examining; TouchArcade is basically a directory entry; AppCheaters doesn't look good, lacking usual reliability hallmarks; Pocket Gamer is a press release copy; not sure about InfoGame, but I don't see any reliability hallmarks (such as about or editorial page or something), language barrier notwithstanding. So that makes 2 decent GNG sources and possibly another plus some extra sourcing for content. I guess it's the utmost minimal bar for GNG, which it barely passes. If the developer ever gets an article, merge. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep along similar lines of Masem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:46, 29 June 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 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Shovlin

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

He is a property developer. Ok. But why he should be on wikipedia? This question has not been answered anywhere in the article. As such he fails GNG. 2Joules (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a notable property developer, fails GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information provided has enough in-depth coverage for stand-alone biography article and represents basic facts about the individual. I noticed a lot of biography pages for individuals on Wikipedia are similar. Therefore I would suggest adding either a stub note or notice that this article may not meet Wikipedia’s notability. (Please have a look at the following examples: Jorge L. Araneta, Thomas Kramer, Michael Shanly) Littledger (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)— Littledger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Littledger: Please don't make WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Each article stands or falls on its own merits regardless of what else may exist on Wikipedia. Adding a notability tag doesn't solve the problem; if a subject is not notable, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The only valid argument for keeping is what you wrote in your first sentence above. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable & promotionalHeshiv (talk) 07:51, 19 June 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 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saichon Radomkit

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

Contested prod without rationale or improvement. No indication he, or his band, was notable. And searches did not turn up the in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG, and nothing indicates he passes WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. It is possible that non-English sources exist but I was unable to find any using Google Translate and the Thai Wikipedia didn't provide any either. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was lead vocal of one of the top band in Thailand 40 years ago. So online references will be hard to find. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The band is notable, but whether his post-Innocent career is significant enough to warrant a standalone article seems more borderline. There's this 2015 interview in Naewna (dead link[9], but mirrored here), but I couldn't find much recent coverage that wasn't about the band's reunion concert. In any case, if we had an article for the band this could be redirected there. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I am reluctant to say that he is totally non-notable as an individual performer because there may be Thai sources that I cannot find and/or translate. But here are some recent Thai media sources in English: [10], [11], [12] -- indicating that the gentleman is now a nostalgia performer representing his 80's band. He would be eligible for a redirect that band's article if there was one. Otherwise, we need Thai experts to track down reliable sources for his other work. He may be accomplished and respected in his country but we need reliable sources for verification. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Qutaibah al Majali

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No significant coverage for this person, only minor mentions. Does not appear to be notable per WP:Notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree there is wide coverage in both Arab and English media and i added some resources now. He has many points that support his notability: first he is who recruited zarqawi! Second he was manager of Maktab al-Khidamat in jordan. Third is that two of his sons were with isis. I think he is notable in this regard--مصعب (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- article mostly discusses why people he knows are notable or what they have been up to, not what the article's topic has done to be notable. Can't find good sourcing, and first two hits on google are to this WP article. Articles cited don't even mention him. Apparently fails WP:N ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited to notable people the subject knows or the organization he works for. The insignificant coverage that is left out there leads me to believe this is a clear-cut failure of GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable delete Heshiv (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heshiv, TheGracefulSlick, and El cid, el campeador: i added some new resources showing notability (his activity was related to 2016 Al-Karak attack). What's your opinion now?--مصعب (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@مصعب: The article talks about Qutayba, his son. His father is still briefly mentioned and not discussed at length. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no. I added new 3 resources. There's 2 paragraphs talking about him and not just mentioned briefly--مصعب (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article is a bit link-bombed, but there does seem to be significant, independent, in-depth coverage, such as here and here. The Arabic language version of the article, [13], provides a bit more detail, giving a good impression of the encyclopedic nature of the subject. I !vote weak because I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be sure about this last point, if being a recruiter and unofficial spiritual leader of a group of unclear size is really very encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1188 AM

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

No indication of notability Polyamorph (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while stand alone lists for radio stations based on frequency are often kept, a list of a single item where additional items are unlikely to be added in the near future should be deleted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/585 AM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of questionably notable radio stations. Not enough for WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

558 AM

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

Non-notable radio frequency Polyamorph (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/585 AM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one station (non-notable by the way) does not meet WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:43, 18 June 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. Sandstein 12:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1332 AM

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

No indication of notability Polyamorph (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/585 AM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one station (non-notable by the way) does not meet WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list article that serves to help direct people to notable topics, not a thing that has to be "notable" in its own right. A consensus was established long ago that because people don't always know the correct name of an individual radio station they might be looking for, lists to help differentiate radio stations by frequency are warranted as a wikinavigation aid — and the fact that only one station has been listed here so far is not in and of itself proof that this frequency should be excepted from that consensus, because as noted above other stations do exist on this frequency and just haven't been added here yet. Eastmain has it exactly right: because North American radio only uses the AM frequencies that are multiples of ten, while much of the rest of the world does not follow that limitation and also uses the frequencies between the tens, it would represent systemic bias to suggest that an AM radio frequency should only have a navigation list if it has North American radio stations on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy withdraw this AfD per the arguments above. Note there was no intentional bias on my part, it was purely a notability argument, but as there is precedent for keeping such articles I withdraw my nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to favor deletion. Preponderance of pro-Keep comments are light-weight and from SPA's or questionable IP's. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S. A. Zaidi

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

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

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

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

The subject is director of only one film Aerials (film) which was released in the theater. He also directed The Sons of Two Suns but it was direct to video and is of questionable notability so I believe the subject does not easily pass WP:DIRECTOR here. I did Google search but it does not produce any substantial coverage in the independent RS about the person either so it fails to meet basic GNG.. There is coverage in the press and I've reviewed all the news stories, but see nothing except casual namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. For what its worth, there appears to be some COI because the creator of the page is a SPA User:Robotictrance.. Saqib (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear, first of all The Sons of Two Suns has only been released in film festivals, so if there is any direct to video platform that you mention, please do let me know because in my country such a platform for releasing independent short films doesnt exist. Whats makes The Sons of Two Suns special is that it was released in film festivals only. Another thing, TV channel news videos of Rotana TV and Video links of Rotana TV with international news platforms such as gulf news and important sci-fi reviewers such as io9 are more then credible and reliable sources. So I dont even understand what is the problem of wanting to delete a page that is related to the science fiction film movement in our Gulf Arab country. I advise you to google search typing Director S A Zaidi Dubai. Or go through the numerous amount of news articles and publications given on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.31.226.240 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established. Berrocca Addict (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — Berrocca Addict (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And how? --Saqib (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to The Sons of Two Suns, his film. There are 53 footnotes, but they all seem to pertain to his film or his father, or are links to Youtube and the like. Sandstein 18:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? If redirect, where exactly, if he directed two films?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability has been established as there is a book mentioning this director and there is 3 different articles that talk about his personal life, not just his films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.65.25 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC) — 2.51.65.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm not thrilled with the WP:OVERCITE, but the two films he has directed have media coverage, and so he barely passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:52, 6 July 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. Considering that substantial sourcing was added very late in the discussion. Renomination is possible. Sandstein 18:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tile wisdom

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

Mistranslation from the Dutch. The "tegeltjeswijsheid" is not the tile but the aphorism; it can be (and often is) applied to aphorisms in other contexts (compare here or the sources within the article itself, neither of which discuss tiles). I couldn't find sources actually discussing the tile itself. I don't see that the Dutch aphorisms are meaningfully different from English ones, and the Dutch don't limit the term to Dutch aphorisms anyway. I was thinking of redirecting to "aphorism", but "tile wisdom" would not be a likely search term. Huon (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article now says (since before your nomination) that the "tile wisdom" is an aphorism, as appears on a tile. I defer to Dutch-speaking readers about the availability of sources about this topic. I think it is reasonable to cover not just the idea that this is an aphorism, but that there is a particular genre of decorative art the word comes from (tegeltjeswijsheid contains the Dutch word tile; aphorism/proverb/saying are apparently different words than tegeltjeswijsheid). Note that at least one source in the article specifically discusses tiles: "You usually see them painted on Delft blue tiles with an image." (machine translation of [14]) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can repeat what I said in my original WP:PROD: "Unremarkable term which could apply to tiles from anywhere, or words written on any medium. ~~Image appears not to be a genuine tile, but a photoshopped creation.~~ (image since deleted for copyvio). No significant references found on Google to suggest this will ever be worthy of an article." So, I see no reason to translate the name of an aphorism from Dutch into English and then call that English word notable, especially with these two references. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the deletion nomination was subject to an edit conflict; it took me some time to write it, and when I started it still said the subject was the tiles, not the aphorisms. That said, I also explained why writing about Dutch aphorisms as if they were something special isn't appropriate; the Dutch equally apply the same term to any aphorisms, including non-Dutch ones entirely unrelated to tiles. Not even the tradition of putting them up on walls is unique; the Dutch apparently just use a different medium. Reliable sources discussing the Dutch choice of medium are still absent. Huon (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Huon and Nick Moyes. This was a poor article accept from AFC. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Huon as it's utterly unremarkable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The translation is literally accurate (it's not a "mistranslation"). But while it may be an obscure Dutch term, that doesn't mean it belongs here. "Utterly unremarkable", I agree. Paul Koning (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ignore the translation discussion and search for the actual SUBJECT which is nl:Tegeltjeswijsheid. It sounds trivial but the subject meets notability requirements as it has been written about in-depth by numerous sources. This is distinctively Dutch and goes beyond words on actual tiles but extends to Dutch cliches in general and computer-generated phrases in this tile-style. Look it up.[15][16][17] —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I just located a more substantive source, in Spanish.[18] Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete/rename? Here's the problem: if there is an English name for this, this phrase isn't it. GBook search produces several pages of obvious misreadings of scanned books, but nothing like this. If we want to rename this to the Dutch word, I'm leery of that given that hits for the word in English-only searches mostly produce clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this vote. If the title were tegeltjeswijsheid (I'd be happy for it to be moved there), would you think it is an appropriate subject for an article? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I also think it's an odd !vote. Maybe Mangoe might wish to strike one bit out? Trying to move this along a bit, and referring to my above rationale for deletion, were this Dutch word ever to be commonly used in the English language, then I'd say this article should stay. But there's no evidence of this at all. Show us an English language source that talks about this topic, and I could be persuaded to strike my !vote. But I can't imagine anyone I know ever spotting a painted tile hanging on a wall and saying "oh look, what lovely tegeltjeswijsheid over there!" And I'm sure they wouldn't mentally convert it into English and say "ah, tile wisdom, it's always nice to see some of that!" Now, Schadenfreude, that's a completely different kettle of fish, and quite acceptable to have a page on this foreign language word because the term is used in the English language quite a lot. The idea that we translate every language's minor aphorisms into every other language and then create a Wikipedia page on it is quite frightening. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I don't see why it matters whether the Dutch word is used in English or discussed in English-language sources. To me, this seems to be a tradition that is meaningfully distinct from other traditions in other countries. (There is a certain prescribed format for wall décor aphorisms, which doesn't seem to be the case elsewhere.) Others seem to disagree, or think that there are insufficient sources describing this tradition. Those are the relevant topics for discussion here, not whether English-language sources describe the tradition. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If people use the Dutch word in English-language sources, then we should simply rename the article. If not, then what is it called? "Tile wisdom" appears, by all evidence, to be a coinage of whoever write this article. If we can't find English-language sources which use some English word/phrase, and we are unwilling to use the Dutch word, then there's no way to justify having an article. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is unwilling to use the Dutch word? I've just moved the article because I agree it's a better title. We have a Spanish source that uses the Dutch word, and a Dutch source that (obviously) uses the Dutch word. There are no English-language sources. (I'll just note that there are plenty of unreliable sources out there that use the phrase "tile wisdom".) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon, Nick Moyes, Cameron11598, Chrissymad, and Paul Koning: Please take another look at this article and the new sources supplied. A much more thorough article could be written based on the Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant and Onze Taal sources, but I am hesitant to do so given that I am working off of machine translations. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have located and added a number of additional sources, including two articles (one in a newspaper and one in a magazine) that discuss the tradition in depth. I have also located evidence of a museum exhibition about this tile tradition, an effort to begin a national day celebrating these tiles, etc. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StuMagz

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

~~Is not notable enough. Appears to be a local brand, unknown outside its hometown. 2Joules (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note to Closing Admin The nominator has been blocked as a sock HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tanneruvenugopalam (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with The Gnome (talk · contribs) regarding these. Best at least collapse or otherwise separate them off so it's clear which comments are being talked about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per my knowledge Its Known and recognized throughout South India. You may get more clarity when Business Tycoon Richard Branson tweeted about this company. Company was into Forbes 30 under 30 Asia List. I recommend StuMagz shouldn't be nominated for Deletion. By deleting we are making mistake regarding the student EdTech Company which provides Digital Campus Solutions for Engineering Colleges in India. Mostly they are helping for Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities of India. We should make them proud by showcasing their strategy of implementation and information to the World.

More Notable references are provided below, You Can Check the tweet too and also the News Channel Coverage regarding them.

"(no title)" (Interview). Entrepreneur India. {{cite interview}}: Cite uses generic title (help) Vijayabhaskar02 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Entrepreneur India on LinkedIn: "This Indian Startup Caught the…". LinkedIn. Retrieved 2018-06-21. Vijayabhaskar02 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Richard Branson on Twitter". Twitter. Retrieved 2018-06-21.

Dash, Sanchita (2018-04-04). "Here's Why Richard Branson Tweeted About This Indian Start-up". Entrepreneur.

TV5 MONEY (2017-03-06), Stumagz Co-Founders Mr Fredy and Ms Manisha @ Startup Junction{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

iDream Telugu Movies (2018-04-17), Stumagz CEO Sri Charan Lakkaraju Exclusive Interview || Business Icons With iDream #15

StuMagz (2016-07-18), Always Be Ready To lose- Sri Charan Lakkaraju CEO Of stumagz.com @ Master Orator Championship

"stuMagz". www.facebook.com. Johnhexer (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Vijayabhaskar02 (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet master. -The Gnome (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I feel this page shouldn't be deleted. Think More notability is provided for Buzz. Johnhexer (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hope it 'shouldn't deleted. It looks fine. As per my research stuMagz got notable power.Tanneruvenugopalam (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about schools?! I'm outta here. I was never here. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes This is About schools, Colleges and Universities. Motto is to make digitized environment in EdTech Industry. They are making sure all the colleges, Schools in India are digitized in the vision of Make in India by Narendra ModiVijayabhaskar02 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Digital Education portalVijayabhaskar02 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Are you, Vijayabhaskar02, in any way whatsoever related to StuMagz? -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Am no were related to stuMagz. I was delegate for GES 2017 Summit in Hyderabad,India for which Ivanka Trump is the Chief Guest. As this stuMagz startup was mentioned on the Board pitches regarding development in Indian Colleges and Schools. As am a Journalist i was curious to know about this Indian Startup for which Richard Branson Tweeted them too. And then made my research and Contributions to Wikipedia community.Vijayabhaskar02 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet master. -The Gnome (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins : Some comments above were not posted here by the editors signing them. They were copied & pasted here from elsewhere by Curb Safe Charmer, ostensibly in good faith. Irrespective of the copyist's intentions, such a move is highly irregular as it opens the door for chaotic controversies in AfDs, and it should actively be disallowed. (We would potentially have editors objecting to their comments appearing here, imports of irrelevant comments, conversations without the editors whose comments were copied, and so on.) There is no justification, e.g. "the editors are newbies," that would permit such an arbitrary, distorting action. Editors are also encouraged to look up WP:TALKO. -The Gnome (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As The Gnome has raised this at WT:AFD I think there is the best place to discuss the rights or wrongs of this. To clarify though, the 'elsewhere' that I moved the comments from was this AfD's own talk page. It was clear to me that the editors who started to justify keeping the article had intended to contribute to the deletion discussion and just did so in the wrong place. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All these editors turned out to be sockpuppets. There is a lesson there, I think, for all of us, and it is to leave things well enough alone! If an editor wants to participate and contribute somewhere, we could show them how but we should not carry their participation forward for them. Nothing good can ever come out of doing their work for them: At best, the editors remain clueless; at worst, we're helping miscreants. -The Gnome (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is an assessment of the sources provided in the article:

Analysis of references
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
The New India Express article	Y	?	Y	Y	?	Difficult to know whether this is quality journalism or a PR piece. Probably the latter
Indian CEO article	Y	?	Y	Y	?	Difficult to know whether this is quality journalism or a PR piece. Probably the latter, particularly as no individual journalist identified
inc42	N	N	Y	Y	N	One of the startups picked by a new incubator
The Hindu article	N	?	Y	Y	N	Just a paragraph. Not in depth coverage
Forbes article	N	N	Y	N	N	Just a paragraph. Not in depth coverage
The News Minute	?	Y	Y	Y	?	Three paragraphs, one a quote.
Entrepreneur article	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Substantial article - looks like a proper piece of journalism
The Hans India article	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A brief mention that one of the founders was featured in the Forbes 30 under 30 list
Telangana Today	N	N	Y	Y	N	A brief mention that one of the founders was featured in the Forbes 30 under 30 list
Talangana Today #2	N	N	Y	Y	N	Announcement of funding round
Moneycontrol article	N	N	Y	Y	N	Announcement of funding round
Cityairnews article	N	N	Y	Y	N	Sponsored a talent competition
Startup Hyderabad	N	N	Y	Y	N	Sponsored a talent competition
Uber	N	N	Y	Y	N	Joint sponsorship of an internship
Coverage of undergraduate summit	N	N	Y	Y	N	Named as sponsor of an event
Startup Hyperbad	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Won an award for branding
The Hindu #3	N	Y	Y	Y	N	One sentence mention as runner up for a startup award
News Minute	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	One paragraph - best emerging startup in StartAP awards
Total qualifying sources					2	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On assessment (above) of the sources provided, the article looks to pass WP:ORGCRIT. The company clearly has a good marketing department or agency, but on balance it looks to me like there's enough coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do suspect undisclosed paid editing is at play here - a Google search returns an indication that someone of the same name as one of the editors that has contributed to the article is a self-employed SEO consultant. While undisclosed paid editing is not allowed, it isn't in itself a reason to delete the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting dirtier and dirtier. -The Gnome (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, I must thank Curb Safe Charmer for the analysis. This is a great way to systemically look at sources, and I am impressed. However, I slightly disagree with the 2 sources above which are somewhat reliable, independent. (I have also looked for other sources, but I will come to that later)
1. Entrepreneur article- Entrepreneur is generally reliable. However, they also run some short human interest stories (< 500 words) which are triggered by some social media activity. This one seems to be one of those. At 460 words, the article is not an indepth article. One third of it is about Richard Branson's quote and half are quotes by the founder. This is not really independent journalism, but more like a Buzzfeed/ScoopWhoop style "short scoop".

2. Newsminute (article about startAP awards) - Newsminute is a fully online news media which focuses on stories in the South of India. While generally reliable in terms of being factual, I don't give it as much weightage as a newspaper like Hindu. Quite a few of the stories are ones which would never be published in a traditional newspaper. Coming back to the article, this is a coverage of the "StartAP" awards, given by an organisation dedicated to promote startup activity in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. I don't consider this award to be significant. The coverage about StuMagz is limited to 4 sentences (79 words), which is not significant coverage either.

A notable startup in India will generally attract attention in any of the mainstream newspapers like Hindustan Times or Times of India. These will not simply be announcements of funding/merger/acquisition, but will be about the company, history, target market. It would include comments by not only the founders but also prominent people in the industry. This is missing here. I am particularly surprised by the lack of coverage in most mainstream newspapers.

This looks like an emerging company to me. At this point it doesn't seem to be especially notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a member of Wikipedia am responsible to contribute verified content to the community. Forbes Asia recognized this startup founders in 30 Under 30 List for the year 2018. Entrepreneur Media is one of the respected websites and Richard Branson is a Global Entrepreneur and his validation is Great credibility for this startup. News minute is a Digital news platform read by millions of users. These made me to contribute on Wikipedia. It looks to me like there's enough coverage.Johnhexer (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like this AfD has been infested by socks. Striking sock !vote HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely Promotional article, no indications of notability. For the most part, the references/coverage provided does not appear to be intellectually independent as required by the new version of the NCORP guidelines. There also appears to be a misunderstanding on the interpretation of "Independent". Since the long table above already rules out all but two references (which I agree with) here are my comments on the remaining two.

Analysis of references
Source	Pass/Fail	Notes
The New India Express article	N	Standard Churnalism (usual format is posed photo, history of founders, explain problem and Aha moment, opportunity, funding, etc), relies extensively on interview/quotations from connected sources, fails WP:ORGIND
Indian CEO article	N	Standard Churnalism, relies extensively on interview/quotations from connected sources, no independent analysis/opinion provided, fails WP:ORGIND
inc42	N	Relies on company announcement from their incubator, fails WP:ORGIND
The Hindu article	N	No intellectually independent opinion/analysis provided, the listing appears to be a cut and paste of the company description created by company sources.
Forbes article	N	The exact type of Forbes article specifically excluded at WP:ORGCRIT as most are company-sponsored or based on marketing materials
The News Minute	N	No intellectually independent opinion/analysis provided, relies on quotation/interview with founder, fails WP:ORGIND
Entrepreneur article	N	Extensively based on interview with founders, no intellectually independent opinion/analysis, fails WP:ORGIND
The Hans India article	N	Mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Telangana Today	N	Mention in passing, standard company description, no independent analysis/opinion, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND
Talangana Today #2	N	Announcement of funding round based on company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
Moneycontrol article	N	Announcement of funding round based on company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
Cityairnews article	N	Sponsored a talent competition, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIGCOV
Startup Hyderabad	N	Sponsored a talent competition, mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Uber	N	Mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Coverage of undergraduate summit	N	Mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Startup Hyperbad	N	Won an award for branding, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
The Hindu #3	N	One sentence mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
News Minute	N	Standard company description, no intellectually independent opinion/analysis, fails WP:ORGIND.
Total qualifying sources	0	None of the sources meet the new requirements in WP:NCORP guidelines.

Having any old "coverage" is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. Also, while the "quality" of the publishing sources is a part of the criteria (reliable source, etc) the contents of the articles must be intellectually independent and deep or significant coverage (an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization). In my opinion, this company is on the startup trail, entering startup competitions and promoting themselves to build brand awareness - strip that away and we have a run-of-the-mill company just doing its thing and zero indications of notability outside of that. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a single sentence to describe anything notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assessment of references here is not right. You seem to find excuses to discard every notable, reliable and independent newspaper in India. One user cited Hindustan Times and Times of India in their reason for deleting this article. While I know HT and TOI are notable sources in Indian journalism but that does not outcast all other newspapers in India. For me, this article has more than enough Reliable Independent sources to warrant a place on Wikipedia. Try replacing the question marks '?' in the assessment with WP:AGF and things will be clear. None of us actually 100 percent know if something is independent or not. This article should not be deleted. Dial911 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the assessment of references, please put forward your counter arguments here for specific references. Your argument that they are "notable sources" has no foundation in policy or guidelines. Your argument that the article has "reliable independent sources" has been dealt with above - if you disagree, pick a source and make an argument about that source so we can understand why a mistake may have been made. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP. Sources offered at this AfD are passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: By passing statements,opinions or comments this doesn't solve the problem. As a member knew the standards what Wikipedia community follows for the legitimate articles. Above assessment are done for the article. By relisting again and again doesn't look good. Found WP:COI. You should look into this with keen interest and close the issue. Vijayabhaskar02 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Striking sock !vote HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Curb Safe Charmer’s analysis lists the first two sources as not independent. The user gives reason for The Indian CEO article being not independent because no journalist is mentioned there. I would like to tell the user that not all news stories have individual bylines in print media. Some articles are covered, edited and curated by a group of journalists in the agency/organization and hence they put a collective tag instead of giving credit to one individual. Also, the first source of The New Indian Express article has mentioned a journalist, even then Curb has concluded that this is a PR piece. As far as my WP:CLUE is concerned I would deem both of these sources valid for NCORP. And with that there are certainly multiple (at least 4) reliable sources to keep this article from deleted.

Another thing is the nomination rationale by a user that has been blocked for sock puppetry. The nominator said “Stumagz appears to be a local brand, unknown outside its hometown.” I am wondering how this sock puppet knows that Stumagz is unknown outside its hometown. And since when did we start deciding on something notable based on a random speculation of its geographic reach? Just because one doesn’t know or haven’t heard about something doesn’t make it non-notable.

Another user HighKing just cancels out everything with his own reasoning which to me appears to be a naïve action on his part. I see there are some references that do not meet the new NCORP guidelines but 4 of them are perfectly okay to keep this article. If we use HighKing’s analysis on every CORP on Wikipedia, we would have almost nothing here as anyone can propose their own casual opinion and strike out the references one by one only on the basis of their gut feeling.

So yeah, keep this article. Dial911 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Striking 2nd Keep !vote from same editor as you've already posted above. Also, you were requested to provide links to the references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. I note you haven't done that and yet you still say that (in your opinion) there are 4 references that meet the criteria. Please post them here. It would be very helpful if you pointed out why those references meet the requirements too and rebut any arguments put forward that argue to exclude those references. A closing admin won't count !votes but will weigh up arguments based on policies and guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you strike my keep vote? The nomination has been relisted, The admin is anyway not gonna count the votes but the weightage and I never read a policy that says one is not permitted to vote after relisting. Coming back to the references, I think these 4 are suitable:

Dial911 (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if it has been relisted, you only get one !vote and it is normal practice to only use a Keep to Delete marking once to indicate your !vote. The articles above were already reviewed. It would be very helpful if you could rebut the arguments put forward earlier. For example, I point out that this newindianexpress reference is pretty standard churnalism. You can tell because it uses the same format (posed pic, problem, solution, future-is-bring) and uses peacock statements such as "Under the able guidance of Charan, teams of enthusiastic young talen who are working day in and out..." and "StuMagz despite initial hurdles is growing in leaps and bounds ..., contains a big quotation from Charan with statements such as "This platform is highly beneficial to the colleges" and has absolutlely zero analysis/opinion written by the actual attributed journalist - just stuff copied from Charan or the company. In order for a reference to meet the criteria for establishing notability, the *content* of the reference must be intellectually independent - while the source must also be independent, they are not the same thing. The content in the references you've provided is not intellectually independent. If it is, please point out what you consider to be intellectually independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dial911: Just a small reminder. A response to my points above would be very helpful in advancing your argument and would assist the closing admin in weighing the Keep and Delete !voters positions. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing:, I still think this article should not be deleted because if this one's get deleted there would be a thousand more on Wikipedia like this that shall be deleted. If that is how we are going to analyse sources for CORPS it would be almost impossible to arite new articles on CORPS. But anyways I don't have anymore energy to defend this article. Dial911 (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dial911: HighKing is right to strike your second 'keep'. WP:DISCUSSAFD says "You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line".

Re your assessment of independence, please read the second bullet point at WP:ORGIND. Where a piece has been 'written' by a staff writer it is often an indication of churnalism, rather than original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.The guideline goes on to say that if in doubt aboutthe independence of a source, exclude it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep in mind not to vote in relisting. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is informative to look at the website of the parent company Right Process InfoTech Pvt. Ltd which says that it is an SEO, search engine marketing, content management and online reputation management company. I believe there is undisclosed paid editing and WP:NOTPROMO going on here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now as sure as you were a few days ago that the contested text should be Kept as an article? -The Gnome (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: Whether the company is notable is borderline, which is why we're here. Assessment of the independence of sources is subjective. I identified the two strongest references, and felt they were - on balance - sufficient. Two experienced editors have since disagreed. I am sure the closer will evaluate the arguments made and adjudicate accordingly. The socking, COI and undisclosed paid editing is loathsome, but we are here to assess the merits of the article, not pass judgment on the behaviour of other editors, whom admins have already dealt with accordingly. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, Curb Safe Charmer. -The Gnome (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this puppet-infested text about a subject evidently lacking notability. I was not going to participate but underhanded tactics rile me. -The Gnome (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability borderline at best based on the above discussion; also entirely promotional and so would need TNT-ing in any case. Sandstein 08:40, 14 July 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. Sandstein 12:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aoi House

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

Does not meet standard notability guidelines. Web search found affiliated sites and fan sources. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur. This is just a fanmade article, unsuitable for wikipedia. 2Joules (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than a few news reports about it being licensed (which is odd considering it's English first place), I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search reveals at least two extensive reviews from Anime News Network and IGN. This is plenty to pass WP:NBOOK and WP:NOTE. The article does need to be cleaned up, but AFD is not for cleanup. —Farix (t | c) 12:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add FandomPost to the list of reviews. —Farix (t | c) 12:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IGN and Fandom Post articles appear promising, but I'm skeptical of Right Turn Only since it was discussed along with other series as opposed to a stand alone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the problem. To cite the notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". Regards So Why 12:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That it is covered along with other titles should not be an issue. The section involving the review of Aoi House is very extensive and is in no way trivial. —Farix (t | c) 13:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article and expanded the reception section to include reviews from 4 different reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TheFarix's sources. Three sources significantly covering the subject seems sufficient. Plus, there's also this IGN coverage from the article. Problems with the article's tone can be addressed by editing. Also, on a side note, what happened to WP:ATD? This could and should easily be merged to the author's article if stand-alone notability is found lacking. Regards So Why 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources prove it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 00:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources, including IGN, to note its notability. ₪RicknAsia₪ 06:49, 21 June 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 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warren C. White

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

Poorly sourced article of a small town mayor which fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. In my search for sources, I found a few brief mentions of him, about how he and his wife went on holiday (small town paper), a New York Times article about his indictment for malfeasance - though only two sentences long, and mentions in old newspapers. While those sources exist, they either cover him in the scope of his political career, or are trivial, and not enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not planning on updating the page and am slightly underwhelmed by the subject, so don't plan on !voting. I did look him up on newspapers.com, and found some coverage: in 1900 his Mayoral campaign got some brief coverage noting his wealth and status as a lumber baron and tile and brick company owner,[19] Here is a link to the aforementioned indictment report in the NY Times,[20] a hotel he was staying at was partially blown up in 1905,[21] and here is a link to an obit in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.[22] Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cumberland MD is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 20 June 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 12:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primrose path

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

Simply a dictionary definition. E Eng 04:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to lack encyclopedic notability. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:37, 16 June 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 12:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Louis University Ice Pavilion

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

Lack of notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. The only source that is given appears to be a website that proposes the development of this project and does not appear reliable. The Saint Louis University Ice Pavilion is not mentioned in any other sources. LittleT889 (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that the only place this is mentioned is a fan site. It’s also riddled with errors and dated info. The Chaifetz Arena has been in existence for 10 years. This looks like unfounded speculation based on a proposal made years ago but died on the vine. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there any news articles detailing the proposal, then you can reconsider putting it in the developments section for St. Louis University, but not as is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spent a little time trying to track this supposed proposed ice arena down (found that the university once had an ice hockey team). found nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 20 June 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 12:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Base Ball Park

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

Lack of notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. The only source that is given does not mention Base Ball Park. Furthermore, according to the Wikipedia page regarding Joplin Miners, there is contradicting information regarding the ball park where the team played (in that article, Cox Park was the ball park in the years 1902-1906 (source provided)). I was unable to find any sources that corroborates the existence of Base Ball Park. LittleT889 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V. Only source is from a database. SportingFlyer talk 04:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see much in my BEFORE. The only reference seems to be baseball-reference which is a copy of Wikipedia (did not get into who copied who).Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails V, but also WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Base Ball Park was a common name at that time for, you guessed it, baseball parks.[23] If more can't be said about a park in Joplin (at that time population ~30,000), then I don't see the subject as very encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name might refer to any venue for baseball. If it referred to a specific one, I would want a redirect to the club, but with such a generic name that is undesirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to baseball park as it is a valid search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable. History should not be preserved here, but a new redirect to Baseball park can be made separately. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above this seems to lack verification and there is no real sign of any notability. Dunarc (talk) 22:41, 20 June 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. Consensus is that there is enough non-political coverage to meet GNG, and a failure to meet WP:NPOL is irrelevant. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Means (politician)

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

small-town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sourced only to a local history book and two unreliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've updated the rootsweb source to a google books version (Johnson, E. Polk. A History of Kentucky and Kentuckians: The Leaders and Representative Men in Commerce, Industry and Modern Activities. Vol. 3. Lewis Publishing Company, 1912. p1170-1174). I think this is one of the "two unreliable sources", but I think it is actually quite reliable and suggests this individual satisfies ANYBIO. Looking at that entry, Means seems to me to be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, seeing that the original reference was a link to ancestory.com and the link no longer works, I assumed the source was jsut a website and not a book. Even, so I do not see how he passes ANYBIO. He is known for being a politician, so WP:POLITICIAN applies. But even taking the text from the footnote of anybio #2 "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." I am not okay with using "A History of Ashland, Kentucky 1786 - 1954" to meet that requirement. Anyone can write a book about their hometown and sell a few hundred copies, it does not make people mentioned in that book notable. So taking away the local book, we're left with exactly one rs, which is not enough to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of ANYBIO #3, although I should have been more forthright that a state encyclopedia in the cyclopedia era is a weak argument for ANYBIO#3. I still think the subject is suitable for an entry on those grounds, but I'll take a look at other sources over the next week, if I can. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I've updated the page somewhat with a number of sources, including an entry in: Hall, Henry. America's Successful Men of Affairs: The United States at large New York Tribune, 1896, p551-552 Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, already has a biography in a reference book. --RAN (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)!vote by blocked editor--Rusf10 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. GNG requires multiple sources, not one source. And we're certainly not counting the "History of Ashland, Kentucky" book as a source to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editor raises a valid point and was not blocked when he expressed his opinion. gidonb (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, he fails WP:NPOL. He's primarily notable for helping found and being the mayor for a small town in Kentucky. While he does have several pages in a reference biography dedicated to him, I do not think a specific, three-volume local reference biography grants someone notability where it's not otherwise shown to exist. Should we create articles on everyone in this 1200+ page Kentucky-specific reference book? I think that's a clear no. SportingFlyer talk 17:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As also explained above, clearly passes the WP:GNG per available sources. Not all mayors of Ashland do but this one does. I have added a reference myself. gidonb (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is literally mentioned in only one sentence in the book you just added.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not take your "literally mentioned" too literally, as John Means is included in two long sentences. And again you are 100% off. I believe that John Means (politician) stands out above the rest of the mayors of Ashland that you nominated, because he was a regional business leader. Likewise, W. W. Patterson had a notable career. gidonb (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it is two sentences. Either way two sentences, now matter how long they are is not "Significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG. Also you are using the term regional very loosely, he ran the local bank. Banks were different back then, every small town had its own bank, not like today when you have big banks with thousands of branches.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "clear" pass of WP:GNG. What we have is a decent directory article in a three-volume work, as I've noted above, typical of a collection of information from 1912. There's no use in arguing about that source. However, he's notable because of WP:NPOL, and WP:NPOL requires: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. We need more sources to show notability.

What IS clear from the available sources is that his grandfather, Colonel John Means, is notable for being a member of state legislatures in both South Carolina and Ohio. SportingFlyer talk 15:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As these phrases were long, I could use the two sentences in the book to reference three phrases at our end! As a business leader he engaged in a variety of branches, including banking. Means is notable under the WP:GNG. The totality of his endeavours led to WP:SIGCOV. This is different from the "main fame" test such as the one you allude to in the intro. gidonb (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer (talk · contribs) Interesting point about the family! gidonb (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS there was much more further in the book for legacy. We have two very solid books. Time to withdraw this nomination! gidonb (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to WP:BLUDGEON the hell out of this don't you? Even if I wanted to withdraw which I don't, it would just be symbolic since the discussion cannot actually be closed if at least one other person voted delete (which is the case here). Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with WP:WDAFD. The sourcing is still weak and I hope you know that "Report of Superintendent of Public Instruction." is a primary source and only has a trivial mention.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your strategy here and elsewhere seems to be highlighting all that is irrelevant like primary sources or websites, while distracting from what is relevant to WP:N. I just added the 2015 "Kentucky Encyclopedia" that describes John Means' iron empire as one of the companies that "created massive enterprises out of the disorganized and weakened industry that emerged from the Civil War." I will continue to focus on all that is important for Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also awkward to bring WP:BLUDGEON up after arguing non-stop under my opinion! Only one editor here commented under every opinion that did not agree with his own and it wasn't me. BTW people withdraw all the time after referencing becomes solid. Better is checking the sources WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit ridiculous. You should probably both step away from this AfD for civility's sake and allow others to review the sources for notability. SportingFlyer talk 07:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to more opinions! gidonb (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but possibly rename. He seems to have spent more time as an industrialist than a politician. Berrocca Addict (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per above. Clearly meets GNG as an industrialist, politician. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Barista. Sandstein 11:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baristas

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

Minor start-up that, from all appearances, is heading downhill. Other than a burst of publicity a few years ago for having bikini-clad baristas, there's been no real coverage, and even the fact that the company shut down all of its locations had to be sourced from a press release. Calton | Talk 03:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

the press release: "Baristas Coffee Co. Shutters All Retail Locations, Going Wholesale & Direct"
company HQ: according to the company web site and Google Maps, company HQ is a house in the Seattle suburb of Kenmore. --Calton | Talk 03:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If nothing else, this article is outdated, since the company no longer has any retail stores (they sold their last store over a year ago). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as lacking independently published reliable sources. All I can find is press-releases and press-release-based publications. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Barista. Article is full of hype and bullshit about a non-notable coffee company. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed about 75% of the article content as promo bullshit sourced only to their own press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:39, 18 June 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 11:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D. A. Fisher

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, mostly primary sources. Rusf10 (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Rusf10: apologies if I'm off base, but it looks like you've submitted a number of Ashland mayors in quick succession to Articles for discussion with fairly short nominating statements. Can you describe a bit your WP:BEFORE so that efforts to look up and better understand the encyclopedic suitability of the individual aren't overly duplicated. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy:Sure, no problem. I didn't include much in this nomination because there really isn't anything to include. My BEFORE search came up with nothing besides what is already in the article. The article uses four sources, one is a local history book and the other three are primary. Given the information in the article he doesn't seem to clear WP:POLITICIAN or WP:SOLDIER--Rusf10 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't find an entry for Fisher in any of the Kentucky encyclopedias indexed on google books, (for instance [24], [25] and [26]), although some of the other mayors you nominated do have entries. I'll look at the others later, but I don't find much for Fisher beyond the History of Ashland dead-link which doesn't have snippets online. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ashland KY is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 20 June 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 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. H. Eba

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

Continuing the series on non-notable mayors of Ashland, Kentucky. This guy also fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a small town mayor sourced basically to only one book. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 23:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 20 June 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 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H. R. Dysard

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

small-town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Almost all sources fit into one of two categories: local or unreliable. The book " African American preachers and politics: the Careys of Chicago" has a quote that is presumably from him, but it doesn't even mention him by name. Even if it did, that's not enough to establish notability. Rusf10 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local politician with no clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 20 June 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 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H. B. Brodess

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

small-town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article is sourced to local newspaper, a local history book, and two unreliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only thing close to being a sign of notability is being a Republican National Convention delegate, but since each convention has a few hundred, if not thousands of delegates (the Republicans have less than the Democrats), this is not really a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found primary sources from his military service and later life. Important mentions in Ashland history as its first mayor. Missing was any WP:INDEPTH coverage of his activities. gidonb (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 20 June 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 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Newman

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

Biographical article of a small-town mayor that clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only sources are a local history book and the local newspaper. Deproded for unknown reasons. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I proded this almost a week ago as I sorted through non-notable mayor stubs. I've proded very few of the articles I've nominated for deletion, but this mayor was so non-noteworthy after a before sketch I didn't think anyone would have a problem with it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 04:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you didn't count on is a particular editor who thinks all biographies deserve inclusion. He feels its his right to deprod articles without explanation.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also note there are a few other mayors of this town who probably fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:- One step ahead of you, I nominated several of them. I won't like thme all here, just check the delsort. It seems an editor felt like creating an article for every mayor his town has ever had.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SportingFlyer. The sourcing does not meet a level necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. Unclear rationale for deprodding. Reyk _YO! 19:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 20 June 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 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Crew Soccer Club

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

Not a notable soccer club; doesn't appear to be part of any organized league and there are no independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable football club. Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. NZFC^(talk) 03:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as what people reported above, failing GNG and WP:ORG. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFOOTY and NCORP - not notable. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, no evidence that even the league is notable. Nzd (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As described in the article and in this source, the club is dedicated to the development of youth soccer based out of Montville and Fairfield, NJ. JCSC introduces children to the exciting sport of soccer and provides professional skills training and high level competition designed to meet the needs of committed players year round." They may offer professional training, but this is not a professional team anywhere in the US soccer pyramid. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 18 June 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 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Allington

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

Not a notable soccer player. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL and the references are to this person's own files and include trivia like his goals scored in a U-10 league. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its the guys personal blog created on Wikipedia. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. NZFC^(talk) 03:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography of a player who has not played at a notable level of football. Article creator/subject contended in an edit summary that he plays in "a professional standard league", but as far as I can see the EDP is strictly a youth league, which doesn't come even close to meeting the usual definition of "professional" in a sports context....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did the guy write his own bio on wiki? Anyway, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like his blog or even an amateurish autobiography. I am of the opinion this should be deleted immediately as promotional.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more to add. Clear GNG fail. SportingFlyer talk 15:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above fails the notability requirements, at the age of 18 this is obviously WP:TOOSOON and article can always be recreated if and when subject meets said notability guidelines. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 14:20, 17 June 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 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of educational websites for children

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

Indiscriminate list; no clear inclusion criteria; not encyclopedic in character. Declined prod. Neutrality^talk 02:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. Not so sure about WP:NOR, though. This is definitely just "what's the difference" between a very small section of the category. DudeTheNinja (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that there is nothing particularly useful that the article provides which couldn't be provided in a category, such as Category:Educational websites for children (I don't think age ranges in the article offer that much value). If there was a deeper comparison being provided and a greater variety of sites, then it would still be in dodgy territory for inclusion anyway. As it stands, a category could instead be used with this article and the existing redirect of Comparison of educational websites should also be deleted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, could this be renamed to List of educational websites for children?, with the article being appropriately rewritten?Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 18 June 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 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Other Tour

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

Hello. In the previous AfD discussion, concerns were raised that this event may never have existed, and these concerns have not been addressed by better sourcing this time around. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Biwom (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and per previous AfD. Could this be a canditate for speedy? I can't see the deleted version, but this version sprung into being fully formed in a single edit, so I suspect it's just a recreation of the old article. Anyways: no real sources and not even an assertion of notability. Also WP:OR issues: What is an "average setlist"? And what is the topic of this page, anyways? Is it the Significant Other tour, or is it the Limptropils, Family Values, and Billionaire Pirates Tours? Was there such a thing as the Significant Other tour? Yilloslime (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article fails the following speedy delete criteria:
- Very likely fails G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion;
- Probably fails A7: No indication of importance.

Egroeg5 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 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)} 16:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Betz family mystery

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

No reliable, in-depth secondary sources relating to this fringe topic. Neutrality^talk 00:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only non-fringe source I could find was from Skeptoid, so the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFRINGE per lack of referencing extensively in reliable sources. Nanophosis (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, trivia; per WP:Fringe and WP:Not News. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 14 June 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 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Symphony Orchestra

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

WP:TOOSOON — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Too soon.....The performance was pleasing but regrettably, that doesn't improve the notability of the subject.Trivial event-related-coverage in RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--WP:TOOSOON founded on and had its first performance at Kala Mandir on 20 April 2018 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--WP:TOOSOON as per User talk:Winged Blades of Godric above. Even speedy deletion would probably have been justified. Egroeg5 (talk) 07:24, 21 June 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.