< 30 June	2 July >

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 procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. – Joe (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lagostrophinae[edit]

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

The subfamily is no longer considered monotypic (see here). As a result, redirecting to a lower taxon is no longer warranted. Although Joe Roe says "No harm in keeping the redirect until someone can write an article", there is potential harm in keeping the redirect because it can mislead readers into thinking the taxon is still monophyletic.--Leptictidium (mt) 19:18, 1 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every Blue Moon[edit]

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

This article is in sorry shape, and will require a rewrite. Basically everything failed verification, but that's not an AfD-worthy offense. I nominate this for deletion because I don't believe either company here (because I have found nothing indicating that these two are in any way related) is notable enough for me to actually do said rewrite. For Board Administration, there is this, already in the article, that mentions the company exists and has a couple of client; this, also in the article, that mentions Wale founded this company along with a few other people; and this, discussing how the company and one of its clients fell out with each other. Three articles from two sources, all three of which are trivial coverage: the only one that is plausibly significant is the last one, but that focuses on Fat Trel, with only as much coverage of the Board Administration as pertains to that artist. As for Every Blue Moon, there's the three sources in the article (all from the same day), all three of which cover it very trivially (unless you want to argue that a page consisting only of two sentences and a quote constitutes significant coverage, which I do not), plus some other trivial coverage such as a SoundCloud station, and this thing that has nothing to do with the record label. Even if we considered them together (which we should not, because they aren't related), they fail GNG and WP:NCORP. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original author Thaboard is a single-purpose account, has been given a spam username block and admits to cooperating in their editing with a coworker, Santrisewebb. I suggest that both have an undisclosed conflict of interest. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Definitely doesn't have significant news coverage, or anywhere near it. = paul2520 (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 22:53, 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Beall Templin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. A perennial candidate who has not received more than 3% of the vote in the 6 major elections listed. She is listed as having received 6.3% of the vote in a Republican Primary in 1994, and then later in the year she ran and lost a race for a local school board. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find sources that satisfy WP:GNG either, nearly all the sources I could find are entries in directories. Although rather interestingly, there is a mention in a novel- CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even at the presidential level, non-winning candidates are still not granted an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as candidates. Major party candidates typically receive enough coverage to clear WP:GNG regardless of whether they won or lost, and normally already have other preexisting notability claims for other reasons prior to running for president anyway — but minor or fringe candidates don't necessarily have either of those things, and "was a minor presidential candidate" is not a strong enough notability claim to exempt a minor or fringe candidate from having to have either of those things. But the references here are almost all primary sources that do not help to establish notability at all, and the only one that's actually media coverage is a blurb in her own hometown newspaper. That's not enough coverage to make a fringe candidate notable regardless of what office she was running for. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: When I nominated the page for deletion, I missed the last sentence which says that she became the American Party candidate with Linda Patterson as her running mate in 2008. According to the Wikipedia article about the party for which she was the presidential nominee, Templin was the presidential nominee for the party 3 times: in 1996, 2004, and 2008. About 2,000 votes are recorded in the table for the 1996 race, but zero votes recorded for the two other races (I guess she was unable to run as a write-in candidate and vote for herself?). While I would agree that presidential nominees of minor parties that have ballot access do pass WP:NPOL, in her case, her candidacies appear to further support that she is just a perennial candidate. BarbadosKen (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. SportingFlyer talk 08:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 22:54, 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 redirect to Paulina Rubio discography. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desire (Paulina Rubio song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG and GNG nothing found in a before search to show notability. Redirect to artist has been removed twice now. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paulina Rubio discography and speedy close this discussion. Deletion is not an option since we definitely want to keep a redirect at worst. And if the single eventually becomes notable (not that I really expect that), it will be easy to get the material back from the redirect's history. As for the fact that the redirecting has been undone twice, well I suggest we just insist. Pichpich (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but to avoid an edit war with fans an Afd discussion to gain consensus for the redirect seemed the best road to go down. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not enough to pass WP:NSONG.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Yes, nom is correct, article creator has challenged a BLAR once. For now it looks as if it's not yet meeting NSONGS, so a categorized ((R from song))/((R to section)) to Paulina Rubio discography#Singles is fine. Can be resurrected if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. Sam Sailor 23:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paulina Rubio discography. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 22:56, 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uprok Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are only providing passing mentions and name checks. Could be redirected to Tooth & Nail Records. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content can be moved/merged to Tooth & Nail Records in Structure and Label artists sections. Lefton4ya (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Notability is not inherited, no indication of notability is its own right, no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 22:57, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altona Christian Community[edit]

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

Non-notable organization that does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:23, 1 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grand River Christian Community[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Only finding directory listings from various searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:23, 1 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 speedy delete. Dicdef linked to sales site, no proper sources or evidence of notability either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glas chairm[edit]

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

One of a number of occult-related stubs which are nothing more than dictionary definitions. Unable to find additional sources. –dlthewave ☎ 20:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently the name of a specific incantation rather than just a generic dictionary definition, but even on the scale of modern occult topics, there's essentially no sourcing here – and not a single source that approaches the project's standards for referencing and inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:DICDEF based only on a source that looks to be tied to a commercial jewelry website. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete single sentence article and as per above. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:41, 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 Speedy keep withdrawn (non-admin closure) \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 02:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dickson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 19:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy keep \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 02:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notable award establishes notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what Eastmain said.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 01:56, 2 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 German government crisis[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a newspaper, and all the political issues mentioned in this article are covered perfectly better in other articles. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not so sure - it can have non-news aspects, and there is sufficient coverage (and vastly more) to let it do so. It does however need a new name - this one wouldn't help anyone either know what it means or find the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can pin the topic as something other than everything the German government is having a problem with in 2018 that would be great. Right now I just see some unnecessary detail related to the European migrant crisis. That is not a good topic, that is news. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Talk:European_migrant_crisis#Merger_proposal and European migrant crisis (Finland), there could be room for a topic called European migrant crisis (Germany). Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Defective and unjustified nomination, absolutely no guideline is saying this. This article is extremely well sourced by many, many international WP:RS. This nomination sounds more like a dispute over disliked page content. And obviously no alternatives were considered by the nominator. And regarding the name, there may be redirects established, but it is definitely a government crisis and called this way by lots of sources.--Greywin (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I do like the page content, it is the topic is wrong and that cannot be fixed without making the topic different or deleting the topic and adding the content to a different topic, which is what I am proposing initially. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greywin I disagree with their judgement, but to preempt their response, the policy that may apply would be WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTNEWS. Strict sourcing wasn't stated by nom. Sourcing quality, especially analysis beyond reporting, allows the article to include non-news aspects. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC) [n.b. edit clash, this comment does not respond to Frayae's comment - and apologies for pinging the wrong person!][reply]

Well on that basis the best thing to do would be to stop this discussion to delete the topic and start the discussion to rename the topic, but I don't know how to do that. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And in case it is not clear this is nothing to do with sourcing or notability, I don't doubt that the German government is reliably reported as having crisis, I can't see the encyclopedic value of putting all issues for a year in an article, that is running commentary based on date, because all crisis right now were also crisis in 2017, and 2016 and before... Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the nom does not mention why the topic should be "wrong" - and why this should be a reason to delete the article. This nomination is completely incomprehensible, as the article is much better sourced than a high percentage of comparable articles, so WP:NOTNEWS does in no way apply. But right now the nominator obviously admits that the nomination is the wrong instrument, so it is to be withdrawn and a renaming discussion can be started on the talk page.--Greywin (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this nomination is withdrawn with rename discussion requested, but twinkle tool has no button to do withdraw, someone who knows how should be found to help. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I don't know it either, but there are hopefully more experienced users around.--Greywin (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found instructions on how to close it. And posted on the talk page instead. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:12, 1 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. postdlf (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Tottenham Hotspur L.F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:SEASONS as the club wasn't in a fully pro league. Fails WP:GNG as none of the sources are anything other than routine coverage Dougal18 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a Spurs fan I would appreciate this, but ye, fails WP:NSEASON. Govvy (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 10:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Almost blanket lack of media mentions, alas. -The Gnome (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS, no indication of wider GNG beyond routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NSEASONS Hhkohh (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:07, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waris Rashid[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the rationale from the PROD still applies, doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - save but the last references, all of the sources used in the article are clearly either not suitable (like instagram) or just routine coverage so subject fails WP:GNG. Subject has also never played higher than the Indian second division so fails WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as does not pass WP:NFOOTY at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hazing in the Korean military[edit]

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

Seems to be almost entirely Original research, the few sources seem to be about specific incidents, not the content of the article Jac16888 ^Talk 09:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the current content is problematic, the topic is clearly notable. Searching for the title of the article [1] produces lots of useful sources, not least of which are [2], and [3]. Moving the article to something like Bullying in the Korean military would better capture the issues. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Nick-D. 'Hazing' is actually commonly used for these kind of occurrences. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as topic is notable. lovkal (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as the topic is common enough to warrant its own page. ₪RicknAsia₪ 02:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject seems notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the issue here, nor is it the only reason for deleting something. This article is almost entirely original research, it reads as though it was written based on personal experience. Perhaps an article could be written on this subject, but I don't see that it would or could contain any of the content currently on the page. It's all very well to advocate we "Keep and cleanup" but unless that happens, which it hasn't so far, all that happens is a bad article gets to stay--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are entirely surmountable problems, and while it may be a long time before anyone improves the article, it can still provide some readers with just what they're looking for. Deletion is not cleanup. Deleting the article will prevent an article ever being created on the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I disagree completely. No original research is a fundamental policy for a reason, somebodies own opinions and views, entirely unsourced, are not remotely beneficial to the project and the way to surmount the problem of original research is to remove it - remove the OR from this article and you have virtually no article. People are more likely to write a decent article if they see a subject missing than they are to try rewrite a bad article. Also Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup is just an essay, as is Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, neither is a catch-all.--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My initial opinion was to keep the article, however after reading Jac16888's arguments I support deletion. lovkal (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject seems notable. Hwimale (talk) 02:11, 2 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 deleted. bd2412 T 21:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cum Town[edit]

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

Patreon-funded meme podcast with no 3rd party coverage. "Cult-following" sourced to their own Patreon page. Pudeo (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is just promotion, no secondary sources. Zubizuva (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:08, 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 deleted. bd2412 T 21:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Cliteur[edit]

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

This person does not pass the notability guidelines for biographies. Although citations are present in the article and in the internet, they are not reliable sources and they are not independent. I do not see the Elle style award as anything worthy of notice beyond that of internet marketing. Thus I recommend deletion. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Far too WP:TOOSOON, I think. scope_creep (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The author states on the article's talk page that "This page should not be speedily deleted because... the person listed on this page is a famous Dutch Instagram influencer. She has been featured in lots of magazines, online websites, tv articles and has her own movie coming up for later this year" - but "Instagram influencer" is not in itself notable, and though she may have a movie coming out, it's WP:TOOSOON at this point. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a cover girl on a magazine is not a sign of notability in most cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 8 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 deleted. bd2412 T 21:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Herrick[edit]

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

Could find no sources indicating subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Best source I could find is a local site/paper covering a local author. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Autobiography by the article's subject, who has also added voluminously to other articles, often unsourced content or WP:SELFCITE. 2601:188:180:11F0:429:8621:CE55:1D53 (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - listed sources are either for his personal website, his publishers' websites, or to organizations' main pages, which don't include info about him. No WP:SIGCOV. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find professional reviews of his books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:08, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Virginia Beach City FC (Women) season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG; as a non-professional club, the season does not have automatic nobility, and I could not even find WP:ROUTINE coverage of the club or this season. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 10:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS, no indication of wider GNG beyond routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, for failing NSeasons, Govvy (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NSEASONS Hhkohh (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:09, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semyon Hitler[edit]

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

The subject of this article would only appeal to a very specific audience; it is better suited to a trivia entry than an article in this encyclopaedia. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial mentions on trivia websites, but little in the way of substantive coverage. Not notable. Catrìona (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass SOLDIER. Does not seem to pass GNG (in Russian, English and Hebrew). Cool story, but not sure where we would merge this coincidence.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see little of note in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NSOLDIER. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:10, 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 speedy delete. Per CSD G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner Rock (album)[edit]

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

These articles are unlikely to ever grow out of stub status, thus failing WP:NMUSIC which states "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article."

Beyond Ancient Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mana-Yood Sushai‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Idle Days on the Yann‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We Are, We Were and We Will Have Been (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The editor whose username is Z0 14:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as although they are mini stubs at present they do have reviews in reliable sources that would enable their expansion, "Wikipedia has no time limit", thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- They have been stubs for a long time with no expansion and the guideline clearly says album stubs are not warranted if they have not enough material. In a way, it fails WP:NOT and also the notability of these albums have not been established. The editor whose username is Z0 15:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- They were only created in June, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - In agreement with User:Atlantic306 above, they are all acceptable stub articles, each having one or two reliable reviews. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The music reviews establish that they can be expanded beyond stub status, plus the track listings are useful. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - G5, User:Jeremy9901. -- Cabayi (talk) 14:44, 7 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Forrest[edit]

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

voice actress with various other occupations. Sources in the article do not establish notability. BEFORE doesn't bring much else up. Some fan following for Code Lyoko, however that establishes Codelyoko wikia notability - not Wikipedia Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with sadness. People have cared enough about her work to create and edit an article about her. However, persistent insertion of a statement that she has died, with only Reddit and a former colleague's Facebook post offered as sources, led me to note as the nominator has that I at least can find pretty much nothing about her in reliable sources. The article history also shows that she's been confused with an astrologer and novelist named Jodie Forrest (wiki source, but corrected by the subject), and I agree with this edit summary that that's probably the source of the birth date, for which no source seems to have been offered. (It was inserted here.) So we don't even have a sourced birthdate for this BLP, and the one we've had most of the time since 2011 is probably wrong. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:36, 1 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Service Yezu Mwiza[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be part of African Jesuit AIDS Network and has not enough independent notability. The Banner talk 11:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The provided sources are passing mentions or primary, and the Nature World News source seems to lead to an empty search page. Can't find much else either. Basie (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - seems like a useful project, but this page is nonprofit spam. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:14, 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 deleted. bd2412 T 20:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 165[edit]

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

Non-notable bus route. No significant mentions or coverage of this bus route online. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very short article with no major sourcing. Fails WP:GNG and is not notable. Tillerh11 (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to List of bus routes in London - This route has a very long history, according to an old version of the article, and is only very short because most of the content was removed a few years back. Surely with a bit of research and expansion, this article could be brought up to GNG standards again. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Jeni ^(talk) 09:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:15, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Darlington F.C. season[edit]

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

Season article for a club playing at the sixth tier (and the second level of semi-professional football). This clearly fails WP:NSEASONS and there is significant precedence that season articles are not notable even for clubs in the division above. The original prod was removed by the article creator with the rationale that this was "disrespectful towards the league and the clubs within the league" and that there "is a strong interest in this page from Darlington fans". Neither of these are valid reasons for keeping the article. Number 5 7 10:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS and does not have any more coverage than teams in the National League who do not have articles. Kosack (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS; since the club isn't professional, this season does not have automatic nobility, and there isn't enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above on Nseasons. Govvy (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above re NSEASONS/GNG. Unless the creator or another can demonstrate a good reasons it seems fairly open and shut. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Fails both GNG and NSEASONS. Tillerh11 (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS, no indication of wider GNG beyond routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NSEASONS Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above and WP:SNOW. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:15, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DLight1[edit]

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

Very very much WP:TOOSOON. The structure is so new that there is exactly one publication even mentioning it (Patriarchi et al. 2018)(the other references in the article are on ancillary topics). Uptake, coverage and general notability are nowhere near requirements at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Elmidae. However, I think it differently. The fact that the article describing the introduction of dLight was published last month, makes it very recent, but certainly not insignificant to the point that it does not deserve being mentioned on Wikipedia. Uptake, coverage and general notability of the topic are outstanding with respect to its recent introduction: for verification of this you can look at the Altmetric scores of the article (Patriarchi et al. 2018), which is currently 264. In scholarly and scientific publishing, altmetrics are non-traditional bibliometrics proposed as an alternative or complement to more traditional citation impact metrics, such as impact factor and h-index. A score of 264, sets the article describing dLight in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric. I would say that speaks out for its uptake, coverage and general notability. --Tpatriarchi (talk · contribs) 09:26, 1 July 2018 (PST) Tpatriarchi (talk · contribs) 09:26, 1 July 2018 (PST)

I'm sorry, but looking at the metrics, I don't see the kind of coverage that is required for a Wikipedia article subject. Picked up by two news outlets, blogged twice, tweeted a couple hundred times - that's not widespread, in-depth coverage. The study hasn't even been cited in another article yet. What we do here is tertiary coverage: we summarize what others (secondary sources) have said about a subject. The subject being this research finding, we require that secondary sources (news articles, other papers) must have done their thing first. That hasn't happened here yet. WP is not the platform to give exposure to these findings, it is the platform to report on findings that have received exposure. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your general point. However i personally consider the two news outlets that publicly introduce and discuss the article as verifiable secondary sources. If you have proof to discredit my claim, please provide it. What it all comes down to is: are there exact requirements for the notability of a subject before it can be picked up on a Wikipedia page? If there is not a specifc rule or a threshold number of secondary sources, then i still believe my article meets the criteria for being published in Wikipedia. --Tpatriarchi (talk · contribs) 10:48, 1 July 2018 (PST)

There is no codified set of requirements for findings of scientific research in particular; the general notability guidelines apply. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article looks very much like a university/reearcher press release, with unnecessary mention of the reseearchers, and unwarranted speculation or similar research. If it was pruned back there may still be a stub with encyclopedic content. I am checking if the two news outlets are independent enough to count for WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- delete after checking, these extra sources are churnalism, just printing the press release. GNG is not achieved.. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:16, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicron[edit]

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

~~WP:TOOSOON, movies cannot have an article until reliable sources claim that filming has started. 2Joules (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)~~ striking nominator as a confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In fact it also fails by just general notability rules, as there don't seem to be any suitable sources at all for this iteration (vs the 1963 film), let alone ones that indicate principal photography has commenced Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upcoming films are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because IMDb and a Twitter tweet from the director technically verify that the film is in the production pipeline — as far as IMDb is concerned, for example, as of right now the film is still only in pre-production. And the inclusion test isn't even just "filming has started", either — for the vast majority of films, notability hinges on commercial and/or festival release, and only a very select few especially high profile projects that get constant coverage throughout the process, such as the Star Wars franchise, get to claim notability just because filming is in progress. So no prejudice against recreation if and when the film is actually in release and getting reviewed by critics, but nothing here is a valid reason for a Wikipedia article to already exist today. I also strongly suspect a direct conflict of interest here, since the creator's been very nearly an SPA for Caillou Pettis over several years, beginning when Caillou Pettis was "known" only for a short Batman fanfilm. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFILM. The director's article has been repeatedly recreated by sockpuppets, and this article appears to be just another sock creation (see these SPIs). Nanophosis (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:20, 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 speedy redirect to Altogen Labs CRO. Duplicate article, any extant content can be merged there. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altogen Labs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, has been repeatedly recreated by dubious newbies, currently two other articles of this same run of the mill lab are headed for deletion here and here. I am requesting a WP:SALT for all three names with this deletion request as well. The rationale for WP:SALT is that this will continue to be remade by throwaway account under different names so we need an admin to step in and rid us of this headache. 2Joules (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt. Horrible behavior, creating a page while two related Afds are in progress and heading very clearly toward deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altogen Biosystems (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altogen Labs CRO. for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails WP:NCORP. Behaviour is likely to persist. Basie (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A10). FYI, WP:BEFORE says "Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep." and this is a recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Natureium (talk) 23:48, 1 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. Sandstein 08:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The McRackins[edit]

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

This article has 0 sources. It has been this way since at least 2008, maybe even since it was created in 2004. I looked for sources and was able to determine the band does in fact exist, sells its albums at times through Amazon, but nothing approaching a reliable source, and nothing that suggests they meet the notability for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes WP:NMUSIC, and there's no hint of reliable sourcing to get them over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if the claims that they made extensive tours of Europe and recorded live sessions for the BBC can be verified, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying that a tour happened isn't enough to pass NMUSIC's touring criterion. To hand a band NMUSIC notability, a tour has to receive substantial media coverage about the tour, not just be nominally verifiable as happening. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:21, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 08:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alderson Broaddus University Spirit Squads[edit]

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

Not notable. Tagged for notability, underlinked and orphan since Dec 2016. Proposed for merger into Alderson Broaddus University but proposal has gone stale and a merger may give undue weight to this not-notable subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 1 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 08:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beau (short film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 1 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 British Market Research Bureau Limited to Kantar Group#Kantar Public Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BMRB Ltd[edit]

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

Lack of sourcing and information to support WP:GNG guidelines, However I recommend delete BMRB Ltd and redirect British Market Research Bureau Limited to Kantar Group#Kantar Public which now runs that company per 1. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed by the nominator. While the present article is poor and unreferenced, intuitively I feel this should be a sustainable article topic. But my searches are finding little to support this, aside from a review of their 1956 "Readings in market research" ((via JSTOR)); I had expected to find more. So without enough for WP:NCORP, I would support the redirect to the current owner, without prejudicing a future article if someone does develop referenced material specific to the historical operation. AllyD (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as per nom HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:22, 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 moved to draft space. This is a very close call. There are four editors for keeping (including the nominator) as opposed to three for deleting, which would normally constitute an absence of consensus. However, the weight of policy is on the part of the editors advocating deletion, as the sources here are too weak to reach Wikipedia's standards for corporate entities. Notably, several of the editors who would prefer to keep the article do so on the basis that the article can be improved. Moving it to draft space allows for the opportunity for the article to be improved to the level of Wikipedia standards. Therefore, the article will be moved to Draft:PayTabs, and will either be improved there, or deleted if abandoned. I am also locking the mainspace title to insure that administrative review precedes any restoration to mainspace. bd2412 T 20:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PayTabs[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kauffman. Thanks for the points.

I believe there is significant coverage by independent articles. There is also a lack of information of Fintech companies in the middle east. Hence the proposal to add this article.

Please do let me know what needs to be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkshots (talk • contribs) 23:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raju, please do clarify whats missing within the required sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkshots (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional.Deb (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough there to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Technically it is WP:NCORP that applies, but the Zawya/Reuters and Arab News sources at a minimum look of good quality and sufficient to pass NCORP even without looking too far afield. It it a little promotional (though not wildly so) but certainly has encylopedic worth - I wouldn't say that either WP:DEL4 or WP:G11 applies. Thus promo tones should be dealt with by editing, not deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously relevant. The article can evidently be improved. Let's do that. I despise Wikipedians that are too lazy to improve an existing article and would rather delete everything they don't wish to fix.--Keyboard Therapy (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Keyboard Therapy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference 1,6,7 and 10 are not valid as per Wiki standards. When I google, a lot of coverage pops up. So I think it may satisfy independent coverage criteria. But its clearly promotional. Not sure if the right disclosure was done. Globe2trotter (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is very clear to me that not a single one of the references in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:NCORP. By any interpretation, the references fall into the broad categories of run-of-the-mill company profiles e.g. Bloomberg, Forbes (specifically mentioned in the examples of WP:ORGCRIT failures), company announcements (Arabnews, Reuters, etc, fails WP:ORGIND) and inclusion into top 10 type lists (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). Can any of the Keep !voters above (Govvy, Nosebagbear, Keyboard Therapy and Bkshots) please point out which references they believe meet the criteria for establishing notability and help me understand why the reference does not fail WP:NCORP. Be aware that NCORP describes the criteria for references and clarifies that "reliable independent sources" means that the references must be intellectually independent and not rely on company-produced material or interviews/quotations, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi HighKing thanks for the detailed response. Perhaps i'm missing something here myself. I'm doing a bit of research into the company, and there seems to be quite a bit of independent coverage, including a video piece done by CNN on the company.^[1]. Furthermore, if we are so technical about the sources meeting WP:NCORP, do please explain how pages such as Mumzworld, Fetchr, Talabat.com, Souq.com are able to publish pages with similar sources. If you are to get this technical, I assure you there is a lot of content on Wikipedia that will not make the mark. To conclude, I do assure you that all of the above mentioned companies, including the article in question do meet one strong criteria of WP:ORGIND, and that is that they all display clear signs of ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization. Keyboard Therapy (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://arabic.cnn.com/tech/video/2017/01/31/v12294-ss-310117-paytabs

Response A couple of things. "Independent coverage" is not the same thing as "Intellectually independent coverage" which is what is required. Interviews with company officers or connected partners (whether written or video) are not considered to be intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. I've AfD'd those other two articles, they also fail, but the argument that "Other Stuff Exists" has no weight here. Finally, policies and guidelines exist for a reason - so that everyone can clearly see the criteria for establishing notability. Some parts may have a looser interpretation but notability is generally evenly interpreted. If a topic is genuinely notable, at least two references should be available. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @HighKing: I wouldn't pick one reference, the way I see it, is, each reference is just a brick in a wall, it's not until you combine them all together for to see the overall outcome. PayTabs certainly are not Microsoft or Apple with assets of billions with technology, I am only just scraping it over for WP:NCORP, even know I said keep, it's more a weak keep. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Unfortunately your interpretation of policy and guidelines is not the generally accepted interpretation. We need at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Bear in mind that the criteria for establishing notability does not apply to all sources within an article - other sources that might not meet the criteria may be used as citations for facts and other information. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when is "Intellectually independent coverage" required to establish notability? There is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that is what is required. Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It has always been this case, just that editors continually confused the interpretation of "independent coverage". It does not mean that the publisher has no corporate link with the topic company, it means that the contents of the published article contains original description/analysis/opinion/etc and not just repeating company produced content. This was clarifed in March and WP:NCORP updated accordingly. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 3rd round startup, last round was 20 million dollars - so medium sized startup. Coverage that is there mostly follows funding rounds and does not reach SIGCOV. There might be 2 independent in-depth pieces out there - maybe (deeming independence of coverage following funding rounds is not straightforward - often VC/company driven) - but the overall coverage here is not sufficient.Icewhiz (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep. Significant and relevant independent coverage available online. Satisfies WP:GNG. Promotional context can be dealt with by editing, not deletion.~~ Keyboard Therapy (talk) 1:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate iVote struck; already voted on 20 June. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 8 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. Sandstein 08:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Stalbaum[edit]

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

He is not notable enough. As an academic, he does not have enough research, as an artist; not enough art pieces etc, and as an author, not enough publications. 2Joules (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been comprehensively changed in the last couple of days, but still not notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:23, 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. Because the nominator has been blocked as a sock, there is essentially no valid discussion. Sandstein 08:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Michel Roux[edit]

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

Subject was nominated for best feature documentary category at the Jussi Awards 2018. Found a couple of passing mentions nothing in depth, No reliable source and it fails WP:NACTORand it fails WP:NACTOR. Edidiong (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 1 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. Whether a redirect is needed can be discussed separately. Sandstein 08:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Lemma[edit]

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

The mention in Halmos' book is "... I read Pontryagin's Topological Groups. The English translation by Mrs. Lehmer (usually referred to as Emma Lemma)".

First, I think it's a mistake to believe that "Emma Lemma" refers to the translation rather than an obvious play-on-words of her name. Second, this is insufficient to make this a notable nickname. The other reference is to the book itself, which I strongly doubt mentions this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing this contribution.

Please do a search in Google Books for Halmos and "Emma Lemma" (https://www.google.com/search?num=100&newwindow=1&tbm=bks&ei=halmos+%22Emma+lemma%22&oq=halmos+%22Emma+lemma%22) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emoritz2017 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you will notice that Google Books search returns the two following items. (quotes of search return including Emma Lemma term are bolded).

"I Want to be a Mathematician: An Automathography - Page 93

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1461210844 P.R. Halmos - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions An Automathography P.R. Halmos. Hugh Dowker was von Neumann's ... The English translation by Mrs. Lehmer (usually referred to as Emma Lemma) had just come out, and it was an eye opener, a revelation, a thriller. Yes, a thriller—I read it ... The Penguin Book of Curious and Interesting Mathematics - Page 207

https://books.google.com/books?id=fG9GAAAAYAAJ David G. Wells - 1997 - ‎Snippet view ... Pontrjagin's "Topological Groups". The English translation by Mrs Lehmer, ( usually referred to as Emma Lemma) ... a revelation, a thriller. Yes, a thriller - I read it almost as I would read a detective story, to find out who dunit.' Paul Halmos ..."

The term "Emma Lemma" is an inside term used by mathematicians of that era; Paul Halmos is one of the most distinguished American Mathematicians; the fact that Halmos finds it sufficient to include the term in the memoir section during his time at the Institute of Advanced Studies while working as John Von Neumann's assistant should be sufficient to validate its significance and notability.

In addition, by including that discussion in his biography, Halmos points to the significance of the book Emma Lehmer translated and Emma Lehmer's significance as an American woman mathematician.Emoritz2017 (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those two links are to different editions of the same book. Your claim that it's an "inside term" needs some other source. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect/merge to Emma Lehmer. I think it's obvious that there's not enough to say about the nickname itself for a standalone article. An alternative would be redirecting this to a (currently non-existent) article about Pontryagin's book, if it's sufficiently notable. (I think it's obvious that if the original book isn't notable enough for a standalone article then clearly the nickname of its translation isn't either). Pichpich (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pichpich, thank you for the suggestion ... sounds like adding notes to the Emma Lehmer and to Lev Pontryagin articles and also creating an article for the book itself is the appropriate way forward. Google Scholar shows it has been cited by 1648 works. Part of the significance of the book is that it was purposely translated from the Russian text by the American Mathematical Society by Emma Lehmer. -- By the way, in researching this further, I found yet another reference to the use of Emma Lemma"", in ^[1] [this work is focused on the contribution of Russian Mathematicians, this article states "In 1939 he was elected Corre- sponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and full mem- bership came in 1958 [38, p. 21]. This last election was planned and carried through by I. M. Vinogradov. In 1940 he was one of the first recipients of the Stalin Prize (later called the State Prize) for his monograph Topological Groups [38, p. 13]. Pontryagin was honored with the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, the Order of the Badge of Honor, the Golden Star of a Hero of Socialist Labor, more than once with the Order of Lenin, and also with the LobachevskflPrize for his research. He was also Editor-in-Chief of Matem- aticheski~ Sbornik for some time."

So USSR apparently awarded him its highest honors (Academy Membership, Stalin Prize, ...) for this book, and the U.S. American Mathematical Society commissioned the translation of this book from Emma Lehmer due to its significance. The article I cited here also states "This theory, historically, was the first really exceptional achievement in algebraic topology", which quite a distinctive assessment. Emoritz2017 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Maritz, P. (2003). Around the graves of Petrovskii and pontryagin. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 25(2), 55-73 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pieter_Maritz/publication/289954413_Around_the_graves_of_petrovskii_and_Pontryagin/links/57273c4708aee491cb411c28/Around-the-graves-of-petrovskii-and-Pontryagin.pdf

Comment I have no objection to an article on the book "Topological Groups", but dispute that "Emma Lemma" ever referred to that book. All of the "other" references appear to be direct quotes of Halmos. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear what you mean by this last comment. I provided one direct quote in a book by Paul Halmos, a noted mathematician that worked at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, and was an established mathematician working premier math departments (U. of Chicago for example), as well as two references citing his work (one in another book, and one in a journal), those are all publically available, and they clearly refer to Emma Lemma as the Lehmer English translation of Pontryagin's book by Emma Lehmer ( UC Berkley, and later independent mathematician who has hundreds of publications to her name). Emoritz2017 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this does not have the significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, suggest a redirect to Emma Lehmer, with expanded words on Topological Groups until a standalone on the book is made. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there are several English translations:

(1) Topological Groups: Translated from the Russian by Emma Lehmer https://books.google.com/books?id=gl4nAQAAIAAJ Lev Semenovich Pontri︠a︡gin - 1939 -

(2) Topological Groups: Translated from the Russian by Arlen Brown https://books.google.com/books?id=TmuqtAEACAAJ Lev S. Pontrjagin - 1966 - ‎

(3) Topological Groups (Classics of Soviet Mathematics) (Volume 2) 1st Edition by R. V. Gamkrelidze (Author) (appears in Amazon as ISBN-10: 2881241336, as part of a four volume series of Prontrjagin's work, and published by CRC Press; 1 edition (March 6, 1987).

Note that different translators translate the author's name with slight variations; the 1987 version preface states that the translations have translated certain terms differently given the over 40 years that elapsed between the first translation and the 1987 translation.

Emoritz2017 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: Suggest a redirect to Emma Lehmer until we get more information on the book. The "lemma" appears to be a nickname. Limit-theorem (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or redirect/merge~~ to Emma Lehmer. I find it very hard to believe that anyone with any proficiency in English would consider this nickname as applying to the book rather than to the translator. All the sources mentioned in the article and above are just copies of Halmos' quote. Paul Halmos was a careful expositor, had he been referring to the book he would have explained why the nickname was not grammatically correct (the appropriate nickname would have been "Emma's Lemmas" if the book was intended).
Delete ~~or Redirect/merge~~ ~~to Emma Lehmer~~ (see comment below). I guess that "Emma Lemma" is simply a ~~transcription~~ transliteration of the Russian name of Emma Lehmer. In fact, in Russian, names have a different form for men and women. The female version is often obtained by adding "a" to the male version, but this does not work with the final "er". So "Lema" or "Lemma" is the probable (I do not know enough Russian for being sure) female form of Lemer (the "h" disappears automatically with the transliteration in Russian). D.Lazard (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be explicit: I did not refer to your use of "transcribe", but to the article's itself. I do, however, consider Lehmera to be a perfect female Russian form for a male name Lehmer, I disagree with the hypothesis of Lem(m)a being an appropriate female form for male Lehmer, and I agree on the highly irregular lengthening of a vowel by a postponed "h" not appearing within the Russian language. Purgy (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added a pointer to this discussion at Talk:Emma Lehmer, as I think should be a required part of the process whenever a merge is proposed at an AfD. To do otherwise risks the creation of two conflicting local consensuses, one at the AfD asking for a merge and a different one at the merge target where the editors may or may not feel that the merged content is worthy of inclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (the Emma Lemma-article)explication on request. 08:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC) I strongly dispute even the factual correctness of this "article". "Emma Lemma" is defintly no "transcription", it is, at best, a funny(?) gaming with the pronunciation of "Emma Lehmer", possibly with slight German/Russian attitude, creating a phonetic nearness to a technical term in math, preceded by an alliterating female first name. Taking this as a transcription, hints to a severe spelling flaw. Considering wide spread objections to the inclusion of trivia in WP, there may be even doubt that this singularly(?) ascribed nick name/nom de plume/nom de guerre should be mentioned at all in the article about Emma Lehmer. Purgy (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current (obviously wrong) statement was made up by D.Lazard, because apparently who needs sourcing when you can just invent nonsense? On the other hand, the previous (also obviously wrong) statements were the result of a strange misreading of a source. It would be good to be clear whether you want to delete only the new wrong thing or actually the article in all forms. --2601:142:3:F83A:611C:BD4F:C063:4BF2 (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as the originator of the article, I find this discussion fascinating. please send me an email where I can respond to you by providing a screenshot image of the paragraph by Halmos. My intent was to point out a fact that shed light on some social/sociological/linguistic practices in the stratosphere of the professional mathematics community. The fact is supported by several references. The interpretation of the fact appears contentious. This was not my intent; my intent was to provide broader awareness of that fact. In the grand scheme of things, I am fine with deletion of the Emma Lemma page I started. Emoritz2017 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this kind offer. I never doubted that Halmos reported this nick name/nom de plume/nom de guerre as used by fellow mathematicians. However, Halmos' claim remains poorly sourced, if not unsourced. Purgy (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears that my guess about the meaning of "Emma Lemma" is definitively wrong. However this is clearly a nickname of Emma Lehmer, not of the book. A nick name that has been used in a single mathematical department and that has been reported in a single source (the other sources are quotations of Halmos) has no encyclopedic value. This a case of WP:1R. I have thus changed my !vote to delete. I have also edited Emma Lehmer for clarifying the meaning of "Emma Lemma". D.Lazard (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Not independently notable, and there is nothing here worth merging. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good :-) . The puzzle still remains, why the repeated mention of this, especially in a separate call out box in Maritz, P. (2003). Around the graves of Petrovskii and Pontryagin. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 25(2), 55-73 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pieter_Maritz/publication/289954413_Around_the_graves_of_petrovskii_and_Pontryagin/links/57273c4708aee491cb411c28/Around-the-graves-of-petrovskii-and-Pontryagin.pdf. - it is puzzling that a trivial / not notable item gets its own call-out box in a very polished high level survey of Soviet mathematics ...Emoritz2017 (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything worth saying here is already in Emma Lehmer, and it doesn't strike me as a likely search term, so while redirects are cheap, I doubt one is needed here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no puzzle about the Maritz article. The call out is the direct quote of Halmos that has been cited over and over, and is attributed to him. It is included because Halmos is praising the book in a particularly exuberant Halmos way. I would also point out to my esteemed colleagues, who have greater international "chops" than I, that this is almost without a doubt a sophomoric graduate student attempt at humor at an English speaking university. Halmos is being light-hearted by passing this along (he may even have originated it in his younger days, but that is a guess). It doesn't really say anything about Emma Lehmer, so I've also changed my !vote to delete. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my perception it is not at all puzzling that "catchy phrases" are repeated over and over, beyond any reasonable limit. Anything catchy to promote oneself or ones friends has become necessary beyond all reasonable limits. It is by far easier to become a star by catchy features than by results (Perelman, who?, Wiles, yes, famous margin!). Being a woman is catchy in math, still. Purgy (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good lord, what this conversation really needed was gratuitous comments that serve no purpose except to make female mathematicians uncomfortable. FFS. --2601:142:3:F83A:3DBD:65DF:F011:5069 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try to read it as pinpointing a systemic bias, instead of whining about facts (Halmos promoting, catchyness per se). I felt uncomfortable, if not vulnerated, in reading the above womansplaining. :] Purgy (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "cute" and "clever" are your strong suit, but you are doing a good job of "abrasive asshole". --2601:142:3:F83A:716E:8F86:6A20:1BE3 (talk) 13:04, 7 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 08:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Local History (Fremont, California)[edit]

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

Unsourced and online search yields nothing other than a couple passing mentions. Does not pass WP:GNG. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try also under alternate name (and perhaps add "Fremont" or "Alameda"):

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

--Doncram (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, so sorry, but I'm new at this. I do not own this but volunteer at this museum. What does "unsourced and online search yield nothing other than a couple passing mentions mean?" They recently changed their name to "Washington Township Museum of Local History". Does that help for online searches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashTownHistory (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:WashTownHistory, it's my guess that the deletion nominator meant to assert the article is unsourced, and to assert they performed an online search about it and found little. Your providing an alternative name for it is helpful.

Can you possibly please provide any links to online sources about the museum, or citations to any offline coverage of it, e.g. any local or regional newspaper clippings? Is the museum housed in a historic building, by any chance? I checked for its address within listings of National Register of Historic Places in Alamada county but am not finding any match. --Doncram (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WashTownHistory: I have added one reference from the newspaper, but also wasn't seeing many online. Read WP:GNG to understand what is needed to have an article. More details in WP:ORG, WP:RS, and WP:Museum. You might have something before it had its name. Maybe this stub could be merged into Fremont, California. StrayBolt (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively, as museums open to the public are basically public attractions and are routinely found to be notable. I expect that coverage in reliable sources exists. --Doncram (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I figured out how to change the title to the full name. No, the museum is not in a particularly historic building. It's in an old fire station and is not a historic place. The museum is a repository for our local archives, has exhibits, hosts classes, visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashTownHistory (talk • contribs) 06:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks i added about fire station to the article. It is more than 50 years old, the usual lower limit for National Register eligibility by the way. --Doncram (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I didn't figure out how to change the title to its full name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashTownHistory (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for changing the article's title are at Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Wikietiquette says:
While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.
Cunard (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so please just don't move the article now, wait until after this AFD is closed. --Doncram (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Worthington, Robin (1993-04-17). "Unboxing History: New Museum Taking Shape in Fremont". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
  The article notes:
  
  When you move, you make discoveries. You own more stuff than you thought. There aren't enough shelves, and people have given you a lot of old pictures. Members of Fremont's two historical organizations are making those discoveries. Still, they're delighted with their new home -- the Museum of Local History, housed in a former fire station on Anza Street in the Mission San Jose area.
  "Both groups have collected absolutely marvelous things," said Sherry Nighswonger, chairwoman of the Mission Peak Heritage Foundation. "We're hoping everyone will just be astounded by our treasures."
  Since last month, Mission Peak and the Washington Township Historical Society have moved more than 100 years' worth of history -- yellowing maps, land grants, steamer trunks, clothes, a sulky for trotting races, a piano that came around the Horn, cobbler's tools, farm implements -- into the building. These artifacts had been hidden in the city's corporation yard, upstairs at the Olive Hyde Art Gallery, the Mission San Jose museum and various other sites throughout the Tri-Cities.
  ...
  The city modified the 2,400-square-foot space -- making the building accessible to all citizens, modifying restrooms and adding climate control for the room with documents and photographs -- at a cost of about $100,000. Under a 20-year lease, the historical societies will rent the building for $1 a year, staff it, maintain the landscaping and pay utilities, expected to be around $150 a month.
2. Rockstroh, Dennis (1995-10-08). "Newest Museum to House Trove of Local History". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
  The article notes:
  
  IT'S BEEN YEARS in the making and involved a cast of thousands: Ohlones, Spanish, Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, Americans. Even movie stars Charlie Chaplin and Bronco Billy.
  The museum, Mission San w Jose's third, is in a converted fire station on Anza Street and will focus on 19th century Washington Township, which became today's cities of Fremont, Union City and Newark.
  Another museum, at the old mission, covers Ohlone and mission periods while a third, at Ohlone College, deals with the Irvingtonian fossils of the Pleistocene epoch, 1.36 million years ago.
  The museum is a joint effort of the city, the Washington Township Historical Society and the Mission Peak Heritage Foundation.
  AMONG THE artifacts in the 2,400-square-foot museum are a carriage used at the Patterson Ranch, the cradle of C.J. Stevens (the first white child born in Washington Township) and the only remaining spotlight from Charlie Chaplin's Essanay Studios in Niles. There is a huge wok used by the Chinese cooks at the Shinn Ranch, a giant bellows from the blacksmith in Niles and lots of books, maps and newspaper clippings.
3. Wong, Scott (2003-06-03). "Head docent seeks answers - History museum coordinator questions board spending, wants more invested on exhibits". The Argus. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Regina Dennie, docent coordinator of the Museum of Local History, had missed only one monthly museum board meeting in eight years -- until last October.
  That's when the 72-year Mission San Jose resident said directors refused to disclose how museum money was being spent. She hasn't been to a meeting since then.
  Dennie, a member of the original board in 1995 whose term expired several years ago, still opens the Anza Street museum twice a week, leads occasional tours and coordinates about a dozen volunteer docents.
  ...
  The museum, in the former Mission Fire Station, opened in 1992 under the supervision of the Washington Township Historical Society and the Mission Peak Heritage Foundation. In October 1995, the two groups formed the nonprofit Museum of Local History, and continued to rent the building from the city for $1 a year.
  The group has an average annual budget of approximately $5,000 for expenses such as utilities and insurance.
4. Moreno, E. Mark (1997-03-11). "Decades Later, Fremont History Documents Find Home". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
  The article notes:
  
  In 1950, Southern California native Robert Fisher set up a doctor's practice in southern Alameda County's Irvington district, settling in what was then a rural-but-growing Washington Township after Army service. Soon the doctor discovered many of his patients were from the founding families of the region that would become Fremont.
  ...
  Recollections of the elderly patients prompted Fisher's decadeslong efforts to gather archives, photographs, oral histories and other records on the area -- now Fremont, Newark and Union City -- dating from Spanish colonial times.
  Fisher, who later helped incorporate the city of Fremont in 1956, became its foremost historian and a staunch defender of historic sites.
  ...
  Monday morning, movers donating their time hauled the multitude of items from Fisher's retirement home in Mendocino into a small room of the Museum of Local History.
5. Economides, Eleni (2005-10-29). "Fremont authors publish new history of Irvington". Daily Review. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Philip Holmes and Jill M. Singleton, local historians from Fremont's Museum of Local History, are at it again.
  After the success of their last historical book about Fremont, called "Niles, Fremont," Holmes and Singleton decided to approach Irvington to educate readers about the community's unique history.
  ...
  All proceeds from the book, which features more than 200 photographs and the first-time publication of personal photographs from the collection of Dr. Robert B. Fischer, will be donated to the Museum of Local History.
  Published on Oct. 20, "Irvington, Fremont" is available at bookstores, independent retailers, online bookstores and through Arcadia Publishing at http://www.arcadiapublishing.com.
6. Kleffman, Sandy (1997-08-03). "Volunteer Fremont Gardners Learn How to Combine Beauty And History". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
  The article notes:
  
  A group of hard-working volunteers is transforming a weed-covered lot near Mission San Jose into a colorful garden that showcases Fremont's early years.
  For months, the volunteers pulled weeds, spread compost, dug trenches and researched native plants to create a memory garden in front of the Museum of Local History at Anza and Ellsworth streets. The garden is about two-thirds complete.
  Their goal is to beautify a small section of Fremont, introduce local residents to native plants that need little water and maintenance, and educate students about the days when Ohlone Indians had thriving communities here.
7. Kanady, Kel (2013-04-03). "Local historians present images of Warm Springs". Milpitas Post. Archived from the original on 2018-07-05. Retrieved 2018-07-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Local historians Philip Holmes and Patricia Wipfli Schaffarczyk have collaborated to create an illustrated history of Warm Springs. Holmes, the founder of Fremont's Museum of Local History, feels lucky to have Schaffarczyk as its curator. Each has a deep appreciation of history.
8. Johnson, Jason B. (2007-02-15). "Cecilia Weed -- lover of parks, history". Retrieved 2018-07-05.
  The article notes:
  
  Cecilia Weed, who fought to protect parks and historic sites using a mix of charm and a fiery Irish spirit, died Saturday at her home in Fremont after battling a series of ailments. She was 91.
  ...
  She also led the effort to create the Museum of Local History in Fremont, on the site of a former fire station on Anza Street.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Museum of Local History to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sources provide significant coverage of the museum. The other sources provide less significant coverage but I have included them here so that interested editors can use them to source and expand the article.
Cunard (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks notable to me, based on the fact that it is a museum open to the public and there are RS (see above). It needs work but deleting it seems counter-productive for our readers.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok, interesting seeing the process. glad for the decision. thanks!WashTownHistory (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The final decision hasn't been made yet. It will happen 7+days after being relisted on 06:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC). Read the primers in the upper right for more info on the process. You or others can add the new info/refs above to the article. StrayBolt (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources demonstrate notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 23:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There quite enough sources to establish notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:41, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

The list is based almost entirely on primary sources, and consists of little more than a dump of the Parkrun database with liberal additions of promotional language and trivial statistics. Violates WP:RS, WP:NOTDIR. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The individual events are not notable in their own right, and all the info is on the PR site. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR and all 5km running races are pretty much non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a sensible spinoff from the main article about Parkrun and so the worst case would be to merge back there, per WP:PRESERVE. There's no reason to do this though as the page passes WP:LISTN. For example, see London Parkrun reviews. Andrew D. (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because Parkruns are quite different from normal 5Ks in that their spread has been a subject of substantial independent media coverage, including in the Wall Street Journal [4], The Guardian [5], and many others (111,000 Google News results with quotes around the term). Much of this coverage is focused on or assumes knowledge of the locations / number of Parkrun races, so a complete list is very helpful in a reference work to comprehend the coverage, which is one reason for Wikipedia lists in the first place. Whether or not a list is available on other websites or the PR site should have no bearing on this Wikipedia article, so I don't think that should be used as a deletion reason (but for the record I was not able to find a list with as much info online).

I agree that the article was not perfect, so I took action and made some changes to eliminate all the promotional language / peacock terms and fix the sources. Most of the races listed also have third-party coverage -- maybe not enough to warrant their own articles, but certainly the article could be improved further by adding those third-party references to each list item if anyone wants to try that. I also think it's worth noting that this notability issue was discussed three months ago with some very important points to consider on the talk page here. The Wikipedians in that discussion ultimately kept the article, and I think it should remain on the wiki for others to improve it.

Thanks, --Habst (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notable topic you are looking for is Parkrun. A list of every parkrun, given it appears every single entry does not have an article or is simply refrerenced by parkrun.co.uk. It's a directory which is what Wikipedia is not. Ajf773 (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajf773, thanks for your points. I don't think the fact that lists are available elsewhere online is a valid deletion reason -- just because you can probably find the List of The Big Bang Theory episodes on a company website doesn't mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Likewise every entry on a Wikipedia list doesn't need to be article-worthy (though I think some specific Parkruns certainly are), for example see how most of the entries in the prior list don't have their own articles. While Wikipedia isn't a directory, it is a reference work, and I think a list of Parkruns in the UK, where the vast majority of Parkrun coverage is centered around, is a valuable addition to an encyclopedia to understand that news coverage, as nearly all of the hundreds of Parkrun articles in the British media are centered around knowledge of a particular Parkrun event. --Habst (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Parkrun is the most prominent running series in the United Kingdom. At the very least, this should be a candidate for merging to Parkrun rather than deletion. SFB 18:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since mother subject comfortably meets notability, plus having a list of events clearly serves the encyclopaedic mission. Also, having the full list of events in the main article would be quite unwieldy, so I'd be opposed to a Merge. -The Gnome (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain... given the entire list is of non-articles and predominantly sourced by parkrun.co.uk, a primary source ... how this satisfies WP:SAL. Ajf773 (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not claim the list itself does not need a trimming. -The Gnome (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would no longer be a list of all the UK Parkruns, would it? Thereby defeating the point of the list. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the list is a directory, not an article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I don't consider it a directory as much as I consider it a table in a reference work that aids my understanding of Parkrun-related news coverage. For example reading the article "10 fastest times at UK parkruns" released just yesterday, this list can be very helpful to understand which courses are fast and where they all are. --Habst (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwxrwxrwx, I think there are actually quite a few of these list items that have articles, for example Bushy Parkrun, Nonsuch Parkrun, Weald Country Park#Brentwood Parkrun, Kingsbury Water Park#Events, Shorne Wood Country Park#parkrun, Victoria Park, Belfast#Belfast Victoria Parkrun, Hesketh Park, Southport#Parkrun, Victoria Park, Widnes#Parkrun, Victoria Park, St Helens#Parkrun, Kings Park, Boscombe#Attractions, and Wepre Park#Parkrun among many others. Rather than being deleted the list should be improved by linking to them. I think the list pretty clearly satisifies WP:SAL, which does not state that organizations in a list each need to be worthy of their own articles (though some certainly are in this case). I don't think shortening the list is the right move but it's certainly better than deletion; the list would not be pointless in that case anyways as there are hundreds of lists which use the ((Dynamic list)) template in this way. --Habst (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sections of articles (using the # symbol) are NOT articles. Ajf773 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Ajf773. That's why I think that the list meets WP:SAL#Lists of companies and organizations, because individual articles per parkrun are not needed (but in some cases they do exist anyways). --Habst (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A significant number need to be notable. Majority of those links are passing mentions. There are two articles, one of which barely survived an AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the listed parkruns are notable in the colloquial sense of the term. In terms of WP:N, I don't think WP:SAL says that a significant number of the entries need to be notable (they would if this was a list of living people, but as this is a list of events it does not apply). There are over three million registered Parkrun users, and I think the organization is in general underrepresented on Wikipedia. --Habst (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think lists in Wikipedia are supposed to be either exhaustive or deleted, Rwxrwxrwx. I'm sure we accept lists of whatever is known and can be gathered, as long as the list is adequate and serves an encyclopaedic purpose. There's always the implied authorization to expand and improve. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In order to address the concern this might be a directory I've just referenced 18 of the first 25 entries. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. This represents a reference rate of 72% and extrapolating to the whole article 371 out of the 516 entries could be referenced in the same way. Szzuk (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make it any less of a directory? Those references merely confirm those few events exist, not that they are notable in any way, nor that the entire list no longer violates WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists". — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:05, 7 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedavi Datani Matokatundhi (film)[edit]

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

~~Per WP:NFF.~~ striking since principal photography has begun Jamez42 (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has a release date been announced yet? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Times of India source says that they have "completed the shooting part"; nom is incorrect and principal photography has begun. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: Since you striked your original rationale, there is no reason given for deletion. Pratyush (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PratyushSinha101: An admin could close the nomination because of withdrawn request unless another user disagrees with notability guidelines. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:21, 7 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. The majority of contributors favour deletion, and the arguments for keeping don't provide evidence of notability. Michig (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Marshall (writer)[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:PERP.

An IP editor claiming to be both the article creator and subject of the article requested deletion on two different user talk pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be somewhat well connected with two fairly well known television series. In my view, meets notability for that reason. -O.R.^Comms 03:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search brings up enough for notability, from what I can see. Plus movies, TV, noted on a soundtrack. I see no reason why the article should be deleted. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Might scrape by NFILM because of credits, but I'm not seeing any in depth coverage. That would typically put me on the fence, but the article was also written by the subject for promotional purposes, the subject has since requested deletion, and it is a BLP that's completely unsourced except for a single citation to a local news site's single-paragraph mention of a crime he was convicted of. We should have better than a little local blurb like that to justify adding crime-related aspects of a BLP unrelated to their claim to notability, and once that's removed it's again unsourced. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : I cannot locate enough sources for verifiable, independent notability, at least not outside the subject's arrest and imprisonment. Looks more like a WP:1E case than anything. -The Gnome (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is completely unsourced outside of the information about the arrest, and there doesn't seem to be very many if any reliable sources of information available. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability per WP:AUTHOR, WP:CRIME or WP:ANYBIO. Unsourced content for his career added under an undeclared WP:COI doesn't help. Have mercy. — JFG ^talk 20:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simple google searches return many more RS discussions of his life and work. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding sources; articles such as [24] can verify some of the claims in the article, but I haven't seen any that are significant enough to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My talk page was one of the ones where the subject requested deletion. I was avoiding commenting (a bit creeped out by having this end up on my page) but since this has been relisted I'll bite the bullet. The fact that almost the entire article is an unsourced piece written by the subject is unfortunate, but not in itself reason to delete. Assuming that the career information is correct (I have no reason not to believe it) and that reliable sources can be found to support those claims (likely) this comes down to a notability decision based on the claims in the article. I agree with the statements by other editors that this does not pass WP:ENT or WP:PERP or WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYBIO,. and I'm not seeing WP:BASIC .Could this article be saved? Possibly, but I doubt it. Should it be saved? I don't think so. I'm certainly not going to attempt to do so, and after two weeks it does look like anyone else wants to attempt to save this article either. The only properly sourced material in the entire article is the statement that the subject was sentenced to prison on a child pornography charge, and that he was a producer on Growing Pains (in the same source). Meters (talk) 05:37, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forssa hospital[edit]

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

NN, appears to be just a WP:ROTM hospital. No claim of significance. MB 03:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; fails WP:NCORP. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any significant coverage. Basie (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: obviously a lot more coverage exists in Finnish ("Forssan sairaala") than in English. Those arguing delete should indicate whether they've searched in Finnish. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 3 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 merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Karachi. Sandstein 08:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Francis of Assisi Parish, Karachi[edit]

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

Nothing historic, fails WP:GEOFEAT. Störm (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Karachi unless notability can be established during this discussion. I haven't been able to find many sources. Part of the content can also be merged to Persecution_of_Christians#Pakistan.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:39, 1 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. Sandstein 08:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosary Christian Hospital[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:NHOSPITALS test. Störm (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article mentions a secondary school that sounds like it is part of the hospital. We keep articles on secondary schools. --Doncram (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NCORP. We are not directory nor a place for charities to gain visibility. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 1 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. Sandstein 08:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Yguado[edit]

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

co founder of Jam city (mobile game developer) and board member of a TV show. All sources provided and found are primary, either from web site he works for or interviews pieces which fails to the requirement to verify the WP:ANYBIO and a WP:BEFORE cant find any WP:RS to establish notability. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the article WP:BIO-compliant by replacing the company website link, and deleting the sentence with the article that was written by the subject himself.

100.12.249.14 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: 100.12.249.14, thank you for providing the source, however, it is a interview piece and would considered primary source and not WP:RS CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just replaced that faulty source with a Forbes articles that meets the WP:RS requirements.

100.12.249.14 (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100.12.249.14 Hi Thank you for providing another source from Forbes. It is considered WP:RS, but the article is about the organisation Jam City, part with interview piece of Jam City co-founder and CEO Chris DeWolfe. Josh Yguado is just mention in passing (interview piece as well). Let sit on this for some days for other editors comments and vote on this and see how it would be fared. However, at the mean time, if you could "multiple" independent reliable sources "directly" talk about MrYguado, pls do and do inform when it is done for if they are meets the requirements for I will withdrew the deletion nomination. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a USA Today article for the intro sentence, as the article identifies Yguado as "co-founder and President & COO," and then I added a 2013 New York Times reference regarding the MySpace acquisition. 100.12.249.14 (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, they are both primary sources unfortunately. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what type of article would qualify? For instance, that USA Today article is by technology columnist Jefferson Graham, and profiles the company from the point of view of the USA Today newspaper, and reports news about it. Graham is an employee of USA Today, not Jam City. What exactly is the problem there?

[25] and [26] 100.12.249.14 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources "directly" talk about the subject and not merely passing mention - see Here 'source' section. You would send a message to me on your talk page or my talk to have further clarification on this for this is AfD discussion page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Eh, this one is a really tough call for me. I do think that a couple of these sources, Josh Yguado is the primary focus of the article. See both: [27], [28]. I doubt that this article will ever be more than a stub, but I think the subject is notable enough to have their own article. But can completely understand delete !votes in this case. Nomader (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTINHERITED, Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to warrant a separate article. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Not enough here for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 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. Sandstein 08:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Rieger[edit]

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

There is nothing here in the article that would appear to satisfy WP:NHOOPS nor WP:N. All of the coverage is rather routine articles about high school or junior college games, and it does not appear that the Junior Basketball Association meets the standard to provide notability as an athlete. I am unable to find any meaningful sources in a Google search nor do I see any meaningful connections to this article from elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the coverage suffices to meet notability criteria. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As creator of the article you would expect me to vote keep. However, even as I was writing it I was not sure of his notability I was just trying to create some articles for JBA players. As anyone can see, there are some sources in the article, but I will leave to others whether they are enough to satisfy GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:15, 3 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. Sandstein 08:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ashley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and significant RS coverage not found. De.wiki article, from which this page originates, is equally unconvincing for notability. Note: The two AfDs listed on the right are not related to the singer (the present article). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: has one genuine chart hit, which peaked at no. 40 in Austria [29]. I think the German BVD chart mentioned in the article is a DJ chart – I believe BVD stands for Berufsverband Discjockey. Neither this nor the German airplay chart are recognised charts. Richard3120 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: the single may be notable, but the subject is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for "soft delete" due to previous Prod. Let's try once more for some consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:13, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Soori[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON: Director of one film and there is no evidence that the subject played a significant role in the films or serial listed in the article. Fails WP:DIRECTOR, WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per mom. He did not have an important enough part in the movies linked in the article until the creator of this article added Soori's name to the cast list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 1 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. Sandstein 08:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoFormz[edit]

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

Native advertising about a non-notable software company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by declared COI editor who has no edits outside this topic. MER-C 11:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice :). Does not meet WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Basie (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 5 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. Trending towards keep. Sandstein 08:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Becker[edit]

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

No discernible nontrivial significance. (There's nothing in the article. There's virtually nothing in her website, as scraped by the Wayback Machine. There are dribs and drabs of unencyclopedic drivel from dailymail.co.uk. And that's about it.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to Boris Becker article; otherwise, trivial and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the proposal to redirect: I thought of that, but quickly wondered why it should redirect to Boris Becker and not to Arne Quinze. And, after a couple more seconds, why an article on anybody should redirect to the article on anybody she'd divorced: such a redirect would seem to say that she's no more than an appendage to the person she previously divorced, which strikes me as gratuitously insulting. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "appendage", I would not say that; you are reading too much into it; the fact is Becker is the last name she kept and apparently uses, and certainly he is much better known, but frankly in the end it does not matter which one. She is too trivial for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonably notable German TV actress. No idea why her acting career isn't featured in the article. —Kusma (t·c) 08:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, would you care to add a couple of reliable, non-trivial (etc etc) sources for this reasonable notability? I don't even know which name I should use when searching. And if the article survives, how do you think it should be titled? As I've indicated, it would normally strike me as insulting to retain a name used before a divorce, another wedding and another divorce; but I'm willing to believe that extraordinary circumstances may justify this. -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of the original acting career is as "Barbara Feltus", like her IMDB profile. Looking at that, she seems less notable as an actress in her own right than Meghan Markle was, but her marriage to Boris Becker was a huge event in 1990s Germany, as was the subsequent divorce. To this day, she is one of the most prominent people of colour in Germany, always as "Barbara Becker". For example, here is a recent debate about racism that she was involved in. Have you done a Google News search? Of course a lot of the results are tabloid journalism, but why does that mean we shouldn't have an article about her? —Kusma (t·c) 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can partly agree with you, Kusma: It doesn't matter how great a percentage of the material about her is tabloidy; if there's a significant amount that isn't tabloidy, then she could be encyclopedia-worthy. The article you've linked to isn't tabloidy. But what does it say about her? That she's (justifiably, imho) appalled by racism, and that she's a DJ and painter. But there's nothing about her activities as a DJ or painter, about her other/earlier activities, or her other notability. If other articles showed her notability as an actor, DJ, painter or whatever, then yes she should get an article, and something about her family and its subjection to racism should be part of this article, and this would be a good source for the latter. But I've yet to see evidence of notability. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She may possibility warrant a separate article on German Wikipedia, but for English Wikipedia, which this is, she is unknown and trivial. Kierzek (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying, Kierzek, that somebody's notability for speakers/readers of language X is a lot greater than her notability for speakers/readers of English, and that this may justify an article about her in X-language Wikipedia without justifying one in English-language Wikipedia, then I disagree. If German-language sources alone demonstrated that she was notable, she'd be notable, even if she were totally unknown to those who don't speak/read German. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you spent time on German and Japanese Wikipedia as I do, you would see my point, but there is no reason to go down that rabbit hole. The fact is, Ms. Becker is not notable enough for a separate article and does not meet GNG. Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy not to spend much time in Japanese-language Wikipedia, which appears to be edited vigorously by many people whose favorite activity is adding unsourced lists. Occasionally I'm surprised to discover a sourced and good article there. However, as you say, we digress. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between the English and German-language Wikipedias, there's enough for WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The English one is becoming rather odd. I clicked on a link to "A week in the life of the superwoman" and was instead sent to "Barbara Becker: Eine Woche im Leben der Powerfrau". The damn website refused to serve up the page unless I disabled my ad-blocker, which I wouldn't do; skimreading through the source, I find that for example she's a healthy woman who enjoys gardening. Where's the notability? -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is getting close to a Keep consensus but let's see if we can make it clear, one way or another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep inserted five mainstream citations [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Otrantos (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Otrantos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ... and also has been blocked indefinitely (by Bbb23)[reply]

Let's look at these mainstream citations. Here they are, one by one, with my brief descriptions of what they say about Barbara Becker (BB):

BBC: the Beckers' marriage, "the bombshell that the two had broken up", and the financial aspects of their divorce. Nothing else about BB.
LA Times: "Becker's Divorce Battle With American Wife Rivets Germans"; also, on media frenzy around this "battle". BB was a "former actress and model" with black hair and black eyes.
CNN: On the divorce settlement. BB, "a former model and actress, is the daughter of a former U.S. Army medical corps officer", was 33 years old.
Observer: On the impending court case. We learn that BB was half of "Germany's most high-profile interracial marriage", and that she "had become accepted beyond the confines of the progressive Left", that "She was an actress and model - the daughter of a German mother and an American father who came to Europe as a lieutenant in the medical corps and stayed on to become a successful photographer and designer."
Telegraph: She's the mother of Noah Becker, and she "has a German mother and an African-American father".

No argument from me that these are from reliable sources (though the BBC and the Observer articles both seem uncharacteristically tabloidy). But what do they say? I see no evidence in any of these five that BB was/is notable for anything other than marrying Boris Becker (and thereby upsetting racist birdbrains), having two sons, and going through a noisy divorce. There's nothing whatever about her Boris-independent achievements as a model, an actress, or anything else. I don't deny that she has had them (I really don't know); but if she has had them, then they're not apparent from this material. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary I get that you're trying to find things in the articles that you think justify her notability, but has it occurred to you that the fact that reliable news organizations (and tabloids) keep writing articles about her is *because* she is notable? Not all notable people deserve their notability (Kardashians ???) but it doesn't mean that they're not notable. Robman94 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robman94, I suppose that news and gossip sources write about her either because she's notable for something or because she has notability inherited from one or other of her ex-husbands or ... I dunno. I'm very willing to believe that it's the first of these, as indeed Kusma has suggested above. Indeed, I hope that it is. I did take a quick look for evidence of this; I found nothing. I'm willing to believe that my search was incompetent/inadequate; but the last time I looked, nobody had added or even referred to an appreciable amount of superior sourcery. (If they did, I'd withdraw this nomination.) Family Kardashian (and Ms P Hilton) do seem to be mere celebs, "famous for being famous", but for those Americans (perhaps in part because they are Americans) there are TV shows and much more involved; and the volume of coverage, undeserved/vapid though it may be, is vastly greater. Incidentally, I hope that I don't need to say this, but I bear the subject of this article no ill-will (I have no opinion about any divorce procedure/settlement, or about either ex-husband), and am appalled to read of the racist treatment of her and at least one of her sons. -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sourcing in the article. "There's nothing in the article" is no longer true. Tillerh11 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - sources added to article. Clearly independently notable of her former husband - continuing coverage to present (some 17 years after divorce) - passing SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 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. Sandstein 08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streamdata.io[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, promotional article about a non-notable software company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Article was created by a SPA, Nicolas B 88, who has no edits outside this page. MER-C 18:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:19, 2 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. Sandstein 08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PantyProp[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to be adding to the encyclopedia and appears to fail WP:NCORP. Marquardtika (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any indication of notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 1 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. Sandstein 08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JomRun[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable mobile app. Actively asserts non-notability, having "300-400 active users everyday". Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 19:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary sources and PR for a startup. Basie (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems fair--JamesLee90 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC) — JamesLee90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Devereux[edit]

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

Simply not notable. Geschichte (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 09:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or in a senior international fixture and does not have enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all above. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - managing at the 10th level of English football is a complete notability fail -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NFOOTY. Needs to manage a fully pro club in a fully pro league Atlantic306 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass GNG. Hashtag united is a cool team name, and I have to admit seeing an individual failing the very inclusive NFOOTY is rare - however the two teams he was involved with are clearly NFOOTY fails.Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 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. Sandstein 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Beynon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO any coverage is in relation to companies he is involved in and WP:INHERITED applies. W 42 22:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, run of the mill businessman who fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Note that Wikipedia subjects should not inherit notability from a notable subject; this is pertinent as the coverage about Beynon concerns the company he co-founded (Mighty Group Inc) and not himself. It must also be noted that Mighty is widely characterized as a startup, and thus WP:TOOSOON applies to any source covering the company. Other sources are merely make passing mention of Beynon, and thus are not in-depth. Finally, the article as it stands does not assert any claims to significance, and Wikipedia does not hold businessmen to be innately notable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:36, 1 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. Sandstein 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amita Chapra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NPOL and GNG. Yes, there are some mentions of her, mostly relating to one specific event (BLP1E, anyone?) but aside from the inaccurate claim of adequate sourcing at the time of the last AfD (the sources did not support the point of notability that was being suggested), there is nothing to indicate even now that this person meets the criteria and there has obviously been an issue with conflict of interest. There is a long discussion at the article talk page where numerous people with experience of the political system in India have pointed out that Lourdes is mistaken in their understanding of matters pertaining to the situation. I see no point in prolonging matters there. Sitush (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, has never been elected and there is no inherent notability being the Chairperson of the State Women's Commission. FITINDIA 20:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some considerable doubt whether she even has been the chairperson - see the talk page discussion referred to above. She does not appear to make the claim herself, although she does say she was a member of the SWC. The claim seems to originate with promotional activity by someone who says he is her son. - Sitush (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the claim that she held a cabinet position is in dispute, then it can't be an automatic WP:NPOL freebie that exempts her from having to be referenced much better than this. Notability in politics is not based on what the article claims, it's based on what the article reliably sources as true. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 3 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. Sandstein 08:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Association for Private Schools and Universities[edit]

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

After research, Swiss Association for Private Schools and Universities does not seem to exist, or be (or have been) an active Swiss association: (1) no entry in the Swiss Companies Legal Database (Zefix.ch), (2) Website is down (private whois), (3) No article of reference or any mention online except wikipedia's rewrites. Notability tag is up since 2014. DeepBluuue (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note: This AFD nomination was malformed, and was missing its template and tranclusion. I've added the template, and listed it properly now. Please consider the time of this comment as the time of listing for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find useful references under either the English or German name. The archived website identifies SAPSU as part of European Council for Leading Business Schools, which also appears not to be notable. Perhaps SAPSU and its related organizations should be added to List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 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 per clear consensus. Michig (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White Ensign F.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable footy club. No sources to demonstrate notability except the Untouchables article from 2007. No additional coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject have surfaced since the AfD in 2008.[35] They might be playing in a very slightly higher league now than they were in 2008, but there are no guidelines for subject specific notability for sports teams; they are still required to meet the General Notability Guideline. I originally CSDed this article as a previously deleted article, under G4, but others thought that the league change was enough that G4 was not appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Club now plays at step 6, and consensus from dozens of previous AfDs (a few examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) is that this is sufficient to make the club notable. I was the nominator in the original AfD when they did not meet this criteria. Number 5 7 08:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you can't speedy keep on that. Guidelines clearly state that teams must meet the GNG. While Step 6 or above might be an indication that clubs may meet the GNG, that does not appear to be the case with this club. There is no guideline that states that playing at step 6 or above confers some sort of automatic notability. Of your six examples: the ones that were kept met the GNG, the ones that were deleted did not, and generally !voters were clear in all the discussions that sources were either available or lacking, while some !votes mentioned 'generally accepted criteria', these are not part of any policy or guideline that I could find. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be a valid or invalid argument in a deletion debate. It's a valid rationale when you're arguing (for instance) that all other clubs at this level have articles (which they do, aside from a few others who have just been promoted and no-one has created them yet).

While you're correct that this is not explicitly written in a guideline, it's more because it's overly specific (each country would have a different cutoff point). It was previously listed in WP:NCORP, but was removed as being unnecessarily specific. Since then I don't think anyone has ever felt the need to readd it, given the fact that very few editors have ever had a problem with the situation. However, I think the mentions of it in the numerous AfDs clearly demonstrate that the rule remains in place. I don't believe an article on a club playing at step 6 has ever been deleted. Number 5 7 08:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect very few editors have had a problem because the 'cuttoff point' that you speak of generally coincides with meeting or not meeting the GNG with sources. In this case it does not though, and the GNG trumps any kind of common practice in walled gardens. Per Govvy, they haven't actually played in that division yet anyway, perhaps when they have there will be additional coverage and they will meet the GNG. In the meantime, there isn't sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I ran a bit quick yesterday, as I really don't like speedy deletions, @Insertcleverphrasehere: I believe articles with any citations available and that have had a long period before being recreated should be given a fair trial and shouldn't ever be speedy deleted. Anyway, from looking at previous AfD and thefa.com website they registered two years ago to play in the FA Vase for the first time in the clubs existence, but they failed FA ground rules policy by having no lights. I am surprised there is no local news source for this on the article. If that issue with their ground has been fixed and the fact they gained promotion they will most likely have to register this coming season, this gives them a chance to enter FA Vase or FA Cup again. If we are going by the criteria that they need to play in an FA sanctioned cup competition to pass then they currently still fail Wikipedia guidelines to have an article. That could change by August know, but that's playing WP:CRYSTAL. Govvy (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Govvy: The criteria is playing at step 6, or in the FA Cup/Trophy/Vase. There are some clubs that have only achieved the former (usually clubs at step 6 without lights) and some the latter (the few that enter the Vase from step 7). If for whatever reason Ensign resign from the league before the season starts, I'll happily delete the article. However, for now they're part of a step 6 league. Number 5 7 09:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this one goes, that's dozens of other step 6 club articles that would have to follow. As Number 57 has said, I've never seen a step 6 club article deleted before. Why this particular one, out of interest? It seems like the main criteria being used here is that someone erroneously thought White Ensign were notable back in 2008 so the article was rightly deleted back then. There are several step 6 clubs who meet GNG who hadn't even been founded then. OGLV (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OGLV: That depends, most step 6 clubs also meet the GNG, so there would be no reason to delete. Why this particular one? Because it doesn't currently have sufficient sourcing to meet the general notability guideline. The guidelines are clear that there are no subject specific notability criteria or 'automatic' notability for teams, they must meet the GNG with sourcing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Number 57 is the creator of the article and Govvy declined CSD Hhkohh (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per N57. Giant Snowman 07:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, you deleted some of our clubs playing on much higher level than this one... Linhart (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:FOOTYN by being at the right level. Didn't before, does now. Smartyllama (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't know about this step 6 level keep before as I've rarely seen an AfD for a club at this level. But we really need a written rule for this policy as it does feel like this is just interpretation. Govvy (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Govvy: I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Number 5 7 19:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thank you. Govvy (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects should not just make up notability guidelines that directly contradict established guidelines. WP:NSPORT clearly states that teams must meet the GNG, and WP:NCORP specifically excludes teams. This is a disturbing result and indicates that a walled garden is developing amongst football editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, it was once included in a project-wide notability guideline (WP:NCORP), but was removed for being too specific. Number 5 7 19:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire NCORP guideline was rewritten a few months ago through extended discussion, and teams were specifically excluded from the guideline by consensus. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with a lack of multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources. All I could find are stats listings or personal blogs. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams defers to GNG for sports team notability. As for the cited WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that step 6 clubs are notable, that was just formally added to the WikiProject essay on 2 June.[36]—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per established consensus, its best to be consistent considering the variations at afd, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:32, 5 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. Michig (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmo's Galleria[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NGEO HC7 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced one-sentence article about a non-notable thrift store. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as it is a business.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable store - fails WP:GNG and and far from passing WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 10:31, 2 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 moved to draft. Now at Draft:Second Phase Campaign (Korean War). ansh 666 17:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Phase Campaign (Korean War)[edit]

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

There isn't a need for this barely-edited standalone article, the information is already contained already be found in the relevant Korean War articles (See this, this and this) and the material that's currently there is unimportant, unsourced and controversial. I suggest turning this article into a disambiguation page which refers to the Chongchon and Chosin Reservoir battles. Wingwraith (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created as a stub and with a slightly different title in 2009. Today I proposed to expand the article and duly tagged it as under-construction, but so far have only revised the summary paragraph.

The sudden desire of User:Wingwraith to delete the article is curious, especially as he has just been deleting referenced material I inserted in the article titled Battle of Chosin Reservoir. During our discussion of those edits, User:Wingwraith has referred to my edits as "fascist," and "hysterical."

I refer to the above only to suggest to other editors that User:Wingwraith's motives in proposing that this article be deleted may not be driven by his desire to improve Wikipedia.

User:Wingwraith cites cite three articles that he says already contain the information that would be included in Second Phase Campaign (Korean War). The first article he cited, the Korean War article, is general and has little detail about specific campaigns and battles. The part of the Korean War article related to the Second Phase Offensive is only fifteen lines long. The articles Battle of Chosin Reservoir and Battle of Ch'ongch'on River are about specific battles carried out during the Second Phase Offensive. There is some information about Chinese strategy, objectives, military capabilities, etc. included in these articles, but about 90 percent of each of these articles is focused on the U.S. forces and actions. Thus, it seems a clear and present need for a wikipedia article which contains more complete and relevant information about a Chinese military campaign which defeated the UN/US forces in North Korea and forced them to retreat and withdraw from South Korea. Lacking at present in Wikipedia is detail about Chinese decision making in launching the Second Phase Offensive, strategy, tactics, and weapons of the Chinese army, and the consequences of those battles on Chinese forces and strategy for pursuing the war. That is the subject matter of the article User:Wingwraith proposes for deletion.

There is a growing body of scholarly work in English about the Chinese participation in the Korean War. That material would be tapped for this article. My editing and expansion of this article would be for the purpose of broadening a reader's knowledge of the Korean War beyond the U.S-centric focus of current wikipedia articles about the Second Phase Campaign. It was no small campaign, by the way, involving about 350,000 soldiers on both the Chinese and the UN/US sides.Smallchief (talk)

1) There's nothing curious about my proposal to delete this article. It's something that anybody can do and I came upon this article organically ever since my engagement with you on the the Chosin Reservoir talk page. In any case it's no less curious then your sudden interest in this article after it was left untouched for over a year. Do not try to make it out like I am hounding you.

2) My description of your edits on that page was based on the facts of what you wrote whereas your assertion that my proposal is not driven by my desire to improve Wikipedia is a violation of WP:AGF which will be further noted should that need arise.

3) We can integrate all the material that you've referred to into the other articles. What is this article going to tell us that we can't already find in the other three? Both of articles whose topics are about the two battles that the campaign mainly comprised of (Ch'ongch'on River and Chosin Reservoir) are listed as good warfare articles so that's even more of a reason to integrate your sources there first. Also, it doesn't make sense to discuss strategy, tactics, weapons, etc on an article like this which should be about generalities and not specificities, if you do that you will start to make whole sections in the two other articles redundant. You'll also note that there's no standalone article for the First, Third and Fourth Phase Campaign so you will need to explain why this campaign in particular deserves a standalone article.

4) "My editing and expansion of this article would be for the purpose of broadening a reader's knowledge of the Korean War" Do not make yourself out to be an impartial editor on this matter when your contributions on the Chosin Reservoir articles prove that you are editing from a pro-PVA perspective.

Wingwraith (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Move to draft. Poor spinoff of Korean War - content in main article is more developed. I'll note that this is a notable topic, and could be developed standalone - but at the present state there is nothing to salvage here that isn't the main article. Should this article be developed, it should be named Second phase offensive which seems to be, by far, the COMMONNAME.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC) If we have an editor willing to work on this - it is notable standalone.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is under construction and is so tagged. It has existed as a stub since 2009, and only yesterday did I begin to add material to elevate it from stub category. Please note the underconstruction tag at the head of the article. As the article has existed as a stub without challenge to its notability since 2009, some time should be allowed for it to be developed beyond a stub.

I am perfectly happy with the name Second phase offensive as an alternative to Second Phase Campaign.

One problem is that there is no "main article." There are two articles about separate battles in the Second Phase Campaign or Offensive: Battle of Chosin Reservoir and Battle of Ch'ongch'on. These two battles were one operation in the Chinese mind. An overview article is desirable which goes into more detail about the Chinese preparation and carrying out of the offensive -- and the decision making process of US commanders and intelligence officers that led the UN forces to advance into the teeth of a major Chinese attack. The failures of imagination and Intelligence on the part of the U.S. in Korea are similar in many ways to the failures in the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The Second Phase Offensive in Korea and Tet in Vietnam had similar outcomes -- they caused a loss of confidence by the American people and leaders that the Korean and Vietnam wars could be won.

There is precedent for an article about the Second phase offensive. The follow-on Fifth phase offensive has a Wikipedia article in good standing titled Chinese Spring Offensive. Perhaps the First, Third, and Fourth phase offensives also deserve articles. In any case, the Second phase offensive was, I believe, the most politically and militarily decisive of the five Chinese offensives. In other words, it is highly notable.Smallchief (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have created 127 articles, none of them stubs, in my eight years as a Wikipedia editor. I've never had an article deleted (although I had one transferred to User space because it was an essay rather than an article). Bear with me. I'm building an article that was a nothing-stub when I began working on it yesterday. Smallchief (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallchief: Modified my !vote to move to draft (and if you brush this up enough in the coming week - I'll change my vote to keep). My concern is at the present state of the article - I agree the topic is notable standalone.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Agreed. Now, if I can figure out how to move it.....Smallchief (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make heads or tails out of the instructions on how to move an article to draft space. I'll request help. Smallchief (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to draftspace. Can this discussion be closed now? So the inappropriate template can be removed. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 16:24, 2 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.