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 delete side goes into more detail as to why the proffered sources aren't adequate than the keep side does at rebutting that, and some keep !votes do not offer any evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Tamplin[edit]

Glenn Tamplin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm interested to see what, if any, criteria for notability Glenn Tamplin fulfils. Simply being the owner of a football club at Billericay's level, or being an entrepreneur and millionaire, or even attracting the attention that he has for his methods at Billericay, appears not to qualify him under the current guidelines. We'd then need articles for every club owner, every millionaire. I'm aware that there is the odd exception to the rule but I can't see why Tamplin should be one. Montgomery15 (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the refs are about him specifically, he's just mentioned. Szzuk (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is fairly well known in the business world, article could do with a lot of improvement, buying Billericay FC certainly adds to his reputation especially with the additions of Paul Konchesky, Jamie O'Hara (footballer) and Jermaine Pennant to the club under his ownership is certainly unique, he should be passing WP:GNG easily. Govvy (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Billericay FC have gained national media attention in the UK and have been included in several viral tweets over the past year and a half, specifically relating to Glenn Tamplin. His influence and notoriety will only grow as the club get promoted and continue to spend cash in their respective division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.134.197 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His influence and notoriety will only grow as the club get promoted" - see WP:CRYSTAL. You have no way of knowing that the team will get promoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will add a few things - aging players dropping into the non-League game is actually very common, as with players like O'Hara whose careers have (so far) been hindered by injuries. So three joining a club at once, although unusual, is no way of assuring the club's owner of his notability. The IP user is right, Billericay Town have gained national media attention - which adds to Billericay's notability, which is why Billericay Town have an article here. Tamplin isn't the only club owner who puts his own money into his club; indeed, the group of owners who don't would be very small. Yes, the cases are rare of such vast amounts of money being invested at Billericay's level - but that in and of itself is no indication that he's notable enough to be here. I would suggest a subsection on the Billericay Town page focusing on his time with the club - but only as much as that. Montgomery15 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability here. Despite the crap muriel and has been players. Signed - sway4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.67 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO; coverage is local and / or routine. "... fined £45,000 and ordered to pay £30,789 in court costs" is trivia; best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments @K.e.coffman: only %40 of the citations are local coverage, there are two that are video interviews with BBC Sport which was aired on their FA Cup highlights show on BBC1, and Sky Sports, that's major national coverage for the UK. There are a total of 12 citations, there is nothing routine or run of the mill about Tamplin. ANYBIO is additional criteria, So out the 12 citations, 5 of them are major national news services. If you google search you will see Daily Mail and The Sun like to cover the guy, but they aren't considered reliable news sources but they are two large newspapers that are writing about him. If you bother adding it all up you will see he meets WP:BASIC of WP:GNG. So anyone saying he isn't notably isn't following Wiki guidelines, they will need a different argument to delete. Govvy (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG, wide coverage for his antics. He was listed the second most powerfull person is essex and is also manager of his club. [1] [2] [3] [4][5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. These include 4 sources from The Mirror, 2 from The Daily Mail, BBC and ITV. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:N. All coverage is fairly WP:ROUTINE. --Jimbo^[online] 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments @Jimbo online:, I am wondering if you could give more detail of why you feel the article should be deleted. Simply saying there is "no evidence of notability" seems to contradict the use of citations, other than the football transfer citations, I am curious what you feel are the "Routine" parts of the citations. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the multiple sources AlessandroTiandelli333 has provided that show that the subject of the article passes WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AlessandroTiandelli333 has received coverage and Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG and the multiple sources speak for the subject. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Big fish in small pond; sources are from that pond and are run-of-the mill stuff which do not establish his notability.. And re his involvement with Billericay FC, notability is not inherited.TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hackman. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hackman butterfly knife[edit]

Hackman butterfly knife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I just tagged Hackman butterfly knife for deletion. It's just a description of a particular brand of knife, with no indication why it would be special over and above other brands. ---- 79.223.6.24 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Completing a nomination for deletion on behalf of IP 79.223.6.24. Request here --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Butterfly knife. There's no reliable source that covers the brand significantly; of course, blogs and forums do mention that this is perhaps an iconic brand. But as there's no reliable source, can't do anything about it. Lourdes 11:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not convinced that it's significant enough, compared to similar products by other manufacturers, to warrant a redirect. Fails notability per WP:NPRODUCT. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dom, the brand is featured in popular culture. Books like The Butcher's Son and private collections[16][17] have references of the same. That's why I believe a redirect may be a good option. Thanks, Lourdes 10:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I wrote the original nomination.)

It's not very clear where the pictures are coming from. It could very well be just a catalogue of thousands of knives of different brands.

I don't mind either way though, both delete and redirect would be fine. ---- 91.10.39.145 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wary Keep Merge to Hackman. Hmh, interesting. I digged the forums a bit and there might be some notability from RS to the knife (re it being used by the CIA in Vietnam) if one would do proper research. See below quotes:

A couple of other books (besides Mike Silvey's) that are mentioned as reference apparently do not make mention of a CIA connection. One is in Finnish book and the other one is Ken Warner's "The Practical Book of Knives." However, there is a third book that supposedly states the connection. It's "The Knives of Finland" by Lester C Ristinen: https://www.amazon.com/The-Knives-Finland-Lester-Ristinen/dp/0962683906 [18]

The following info comes from "The Working Folding Knife" by Steven Dick (a great book - you should get a copy if you don't already): An importer got permission to import Hackman Camp knives (from Finland) from US Customs. The book doesn't give the type of stainless used, but does state that a number of these knives were purchased by the CIA. Since they were of foreign manufacture, they were "sterile" (not traceable back to the US)." [19]

Cheers Manelolo (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on RS: Hah, managed to find a RS for the CIA claim and added it to the article: Silvey, Michael W. Pocket Knives of the United States Military. 2002. ISBN 0965554422. You can see the source page pictured here at 0:44: [20]. Nevertheless, my final opinion would be to merge any verifiable info to the Hackman article and add the rest to its talk page for possible future use. Manelolo (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- If this article were created yesterday, instead of ten years ago, would you suggest it be saved? I doubt it. All original research. No citations. Someone will argue that its long life give its some privilege. I argue the other way. If no references have appeared in ten years, what makes us believe things will change now? I say, "Let's see the notability before the discussion is over." Blog posts don't count. And neither do sources that got their start from people looking at this article for ten years. Rhadow (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Hackman per Manelolo; Despite being used by the CIA during Vietnam, WP:PRODUCT specifically advises to avoid articles for every individual item produced by a manufacturer. Operator873^CONNECT 03:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hackman as per WP:ATD-M. Upon consideration and source searches, not notable for a standalone article, but the merge target article has no mention, so this will improve the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hackman. I've struck off my earlier !vote because a merge to Hackman (which, I had no idea existed) seems more sensible here than a Redirect to Butterfly knife. Lourdes 18:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Thai Dishes. Actually a merge but since editorial judgement is required in deciding what to merge Inhave done the redirect and anyone can move the required content from the history Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praramlongsong[edit]

Praramlongsong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable food that the article admit is not even found now fails WP:GNG and blatantly violatates WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. No reliable sources that ever reported about this. The article was declined at AFC, then the author circumvent further review and copy pasted it to mainspace.  — Ammarpad (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Paul_012 (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And of course, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Paul_012 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies the GNG, having received in-depth coverage in Silpa Wattanatham magazine, a major history publication.[21] Shops specialising in the menu have been also been covered by Manager Online[22] and All Magazine.[23] Plenty of English-language coverage in above-linked book results. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes plenty of sources about Thai dishes in general. These sources are not directly discussing this one particular type in an indepth manner. It was merely described as all the rest in the list, and we don't have article on them. You can't just build an encyclopedic article about food because it was described by wannabe journalist in a particular magazine. Else we would end up with thousand of dishes stub, because one cookery magazine can describe 100 types of dishes in one issue. But who write these description and how-to? Everybody and food pundits! More often than not; just by scripting letter to the editor. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The three directly linked Thai-language sources do directly discuss the particular dish in an in-depth manner, including its origins, influences, name, and changes in popularity over the century. They are not cookery magazines describing recipes. As noted above, Silpa Wattanatham is a major publication in Thai history, and its specific coverage of the dish should indicate that it is a menu with a history and story that warrants an article. There are most extremely likely plenty of other offline sources in Thai as well. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, being mentioned in "major newspaper" doesn't confer notability. Since creation of the paper I believed it wrote alot, we dont create article for everything it wrote abou. Earlier you said the above English sources do 'directly discuss it specifically and that's not true, I read them entirely. I can dissect their content here one by one. You now switched position and say; no, the directly discussion is in Thai sources. Before I replied you switched position the third time (below relist's comment) and claimed your keep vote is also for merge. I can't read Thai, and I don't claim I do, but you already shown why you think it is real dish coverage and how only one paper can establish notability for topic; because you think since it is a major paper, it can. This inconsistency (plus my reply under your merge suggestion) show you totally don't have confidence in what you're saying. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you probably misread some of my comments. You argued in the original deletion request, "No reliable sources that ever reported about this." I provided examples of reliable sources in Thai as a counterargument. (I also provided English search terms for convenience, but that was never my main point.) You now seem to be arguing that the coverage by those reliable sources don't confer notability. I don't think that is in agreement with the WP:GNG. The comment below was made in response to the merge suggestion by power~enwiki, and reaffirms my opinion that the subject is notable, and deserves an article (per WP:TNT). --Paul_012 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS There are probably already a thousand articles under Category:Cuisine stubs. Stubs are not a bad thing, and have been an integral part of Wikipedia's content since the beginning. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, the fact that parmanent stubs on other dishes exist is not reason to keep creating things which will never expand beyond recipes how to and depend such creation with weak argument others exist since the beginning; this is Appeal to tradition fallacy.Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was merely pointing out that "Nobody's working on it" isn't a valid reason for deletion either. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not about nobody is working on it, it is about whether it should be included at all in Wikipedia. Even if everybody is working on it they cannot create notability for it –Ammarpad (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • So the thousand-stub issue is irrelevant. At least that's cleared up. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. -- Alex^TW 04:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Thai dishes. The references are enough to show the dish exists but there's very little beyond that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To make entirely clear, merging would have room for a two-sentence description in the existing table structure at List of Thai dishes; the lead content (and one reference that can be verified) would be merged, and the rest of the content deleted. Wikipedia is not a cookbook, and the "Recipe" section should be removed in any case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To clarify, my Keep !vote was in response to the original argument that the subject fails the GNG, which I disputed above. I won't be opposed to merging or deleting without prejudice per WP:TNT. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To set record straight, this article was rightly declined due to it's poor shape and notability of content at AFC]. I already said it is just How-to recipe article sourced (also poorly) from recipe magazines against Wikipedia policies. Then small how-to portion was removed already unsourced, and the author resubmitted. Any article rejected based on notability and NOT cannot be accepted by simple removing of few lines, You and I know this. But instead for you to left it for another reviewer to review, you removed the AFC submission and directed the article to the same declined content but different title. The redirect target was also created by the author. You did this because you surely know, no any competent reviewer will accept it because it is rightly both NOT and WP:TNT material (as you also now admit). The author created it in 3 places, so as to pass through AFC 2 Nov, 16 Nov, 22 Nov. I understand you're from Thailand (or nearby) and have interest in everything Thai, but we shouldn't left our nationalistic thought to prevail over Wikipedia standards. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if you're accusing me of doing something wrong, and if so, what. I'm sure that you're aware that AfC is a completely voluntary process (except in the case of COI editing), and there is no policy or guideline prohibiting users from directly creating an article in mainspace, even after a failed AfC submission. The creator of this article created several duplicate drafts, so I redirected one to the other to avoid the redundancy. When they directly created the article in mainspace, they signified their intent to abandon the AfC process, and so the drafts were redirected to the live article to prevent confusion. I never disputed the AfC declines for the drafts to this article, but since it is now in mainspace, AfD is the venue that now matters, and the policy considerations of these venues are different. If you're accusing me of using nationalistic interest to blindly argue for inclusion of articles, you are plain wrong. I am simply trying to help by identifying relevant Thai sources, which, as you have noted, are not understood by everyone. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry, If my comments little upseted you. It is never intended that way, but just to lay record of the drafts, in it deletion discussion. I nominated this for deletion because it fails many criteria for encyclopedic inclusion, the same reason it was rightly declined at AFC. Yes, I agree with you AFC is voluntary process, but the way it is to you (long term editor/auto patrolled+many rights) is not the same to the newbie who created this articles (11 total edits/~30 days account). –Ammarpad (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. I agree content could be Merged to List of Thai dishes per power~enwiki. Operator873^CONNECT 03:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Operator873:. Please read the article and suggest what to be merged. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had read the article and I suggest the lead portion could be merged to the List of Thai dishes. Save for the "Nowadays" sentence. Operator873^CONNECT 18:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Thai dishes. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically List of Thai dishes#Rice _dishes

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. DGG ( talk ) 10:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alton More[edit]

Alton More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Alton More was a soldier in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; his rank (private) and lack of awards leave him short of notability under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, he worked in sales and died in an automobile accident in 1958. He supposedly kept two photograph albums belonging to Adolf Hitler which he found at Hitler's Eagle's Nest. None of the accounts describe the albums in any detail and, if they exist, their whereabouts are unknown. More does not qualify for a page as having significant coverage. A former French soldier also had photo albums from the Berghof and said the French were there well before the Americans and had taken photo albums. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to admit I have serious concerns when articles on real people are put in characters categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How many more of these are there? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough to have his own article. Have to agree that it does not qualify for a page, as there is not enough significant coverage. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is solely referenced to his own reminiscences. Fails WP:GNG as there do not seem to be reliable outside sources supplying notability. If he really found such photo albums, why have they not surfaced since? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am updating the article based on a dozen or so articles discussing or about More found in local newspapers on newspapers.com. I'll be finished with these edits in a couple hours. I don't know much about the photo album, but his life seemed to actually be relatively well covered in those newspaper articles, and thus passes WP:V much more strongly than many other members of Company E. This coverage extends to some of his activities during the war, reducing concerns about WP:NPOV that arise when only BoB-universe sources are used for these articles. As for WP:NOR, I don't consider it OR to use newspapers to outline a persons biography when they are clearly covering the same person as in this case. As for notability, he was a corporal in the national guard, but probably isn't covered under NMILITARY unless the photo album story is true and somehow more important than current coverage suggests (note that currently there is no coverage independent of the BoB-verse). As for GNG, I think local newspapers can be used so I would suggest he passes. I recognize that if someone holds a standard that non-local sources are key for content to be encyclopedic, this is a borderline case as the only non-local source currently used (including what I'm currently adding) is a popular microhistory of sometimes questionable accuracy. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This is a story that should not be lost to posterity. Having said that, a guy who was probably a horse-riding charmer and and a favorite of the local paper doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. A million grandads have these stories, most not as colorful as this one. There is not a shred of proof that he ever had Hitler's photo album, and I'm not sure his theft of it is notable in itself. This business that human interest stories in the local paper constitutes notability is an abuse of the guideline. Rhadow (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and Rhadow. If More's association with Easy Company can be verified, he may have a place in that article. But the article is unable to stand on its own. Operator873^CONNECT 03:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like we have legit claims of notability here. In addition, there is no policy against having articles created in exchange for money (although there are rules about what such editors need to disclose and must not edit) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arne & Carlos[edit]

Arne & Carlos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable clothing company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. As it stands, the article in question suffers from a lack of sourcing, and quick searches by myself turn up nothing that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, nor would they establish the company as having any encyclopedic value. I believe that the fact that this article has not been expanded since 2005 (with the exception of content added by a disclosed paid editor (Talk:Arne & Carlos) speaks as to the notability of this company. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: There is already a discussion underway at the talk page of this article, as I'm sure you've seen. A new draft will be submitted as soon as possible. JacobMW (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a new version of the article in question is in progress is not pertinent to this Afd. Opinions on deletion can be changed as the article is filled out, but this article is live, and as such must be judged in accordance to Wikipedia's criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Full disclosure, Arne & Carlos are a client of my paid editing firm Mister Wiki (WP:AVOIDCOI). I'm still not entirely sure why this article was put into AfD (WP:ATD) since this article was originally a WP:STUB and was in the middle of being expanded, but regardless, I'm here to just make a few points and hope that we can objectively come to a decision on this.

Since the article was in the middle of expansion, I think it should be judged by its draft over at this link instead of this current stub version. In regards to SamHolt6's doubt of it passing WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, the new references are not just trivial mentions of the topic, almost all of them are in-depth coverage / interviews regarding the topic. And FWIW, A&C are published authors and have been on display at museums for their knitting work, passing the guidelines of notability for a WP:AUTHOR. JacobMW (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobMW: You never know, perhaps the draft you are working on does fulfill all the necessary criteria. The museum information seems promising. But for now, this Afd is concerning the article as it is. I would recommend that you add the information from you draft to the current article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: Fair enough. Is it okay for me to edit the article directly since I have a WP:COI? It seems we've talked this through, and (obviously, since this article is open to everyone) I have no problem with any corrections or edits that people might want to make after all the content has been added in. JacobMW (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for clarity on whether I should follow Sam's advice and directly implement the draft. User:Jytdog, your thoughts? JacobMW (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under a deletion discussion are treated kind of like drafts and are obviously being examined, so in this kind of situation I would say that since Sam gave you the greenlight, go ahead and implement your changes. Please be sure to note in the edit note: "paid editor implementing proposal as suggested at WP:Articles for deletion/Arne & Carlos ". (that is black because the WP software won't show a Wikilink to the page the wikilink is on -- it will work in the edit summary) And if anybody reverts a change, please do not re-revert. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks! Will do this now. JacobMW (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog and SamHolt6: Page has been updated with new information. Will let the community decide with this draft now in place. JacobMW (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for paid advertising, and we should not have articles created by paid editing clients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Johnpacklambert: Entirely understand where you are coming from and your opinion on this. However, this article was a WP:STUB before which is why my firm was hired to expand it. Regardless of it being paid for or not, it was asking to be built with more information which was done. I've already made a case above as to why I believe this is notable. I'd appreciate any constructive feedback as to how I can improve my practices in regards to WP:PAID JacobMW (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My understanding is that as long as this editor discloses that he's a paid client, there's nothing preventing him from adding to this article. I found a lot of material on this company with a Google News search. There's lots of it in Norwegian, but also some in English, and it doesn't have to be in English to be considered notable, correct? It's also the main focus of many of those articles. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See for example Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Conflict_of_interest_guideline, that is something. Correct, sources don´t have to be in english, only WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think WP:GNG can be satisfied with Aftenposten, NRK and the Independent. [24][25][26]. Possibly the topic should be "designerduon" instead of the company, like in the norwegian WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more: National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design: [27]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These people are clearly notable by our standards: the (UK) Independent calls them "knitting rock stars", ABC Australia describes them as "Nordic knitting icons". That is evidence of a level of global notability that far exceeds that of (tens of?) thousands of the sportspeople and local politicians on whom we are happy to have articles. Note: I've again removed the promotional paid-editor content, but have added the references from that version to the current one; while I fully agree with Johnpacklambert that (in almost every case) articles created by paid editors should simply be nuked as promotion, that isn't the case here – it was a stub before and is one again, though I've marginally enlarged it. I hope that other volunteer editors, preferably with fluency in Scandinavian languages, will expand it further. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carsten Frank[edit]

Carsten Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable actor. Article never sourced or improved upon since its creation exactly ten years ago. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actor with no reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with John Pack Lambert, looks like no notability and no reliable sources listing him. Google searches turned up nothing. Srt8 Outta Philly (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HINDWIKI • CHAT 02:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Gatmaitan[edit]

Luis Gatmaitan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP with no working references Rathfelder (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - AFD is not BLPPROD. Even on my cruddy web connection via my smartphone, it seems like there are reviews and other references (on the subject's literary career) that indicate at least a pass of GNG. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly very notable with lots of coverage on news media. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not suggesting its not notable. But we have a rule about BLPs. Rathfelder (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And an established procedure for handling unsourced BLPs. It seems like it would be easiest just to add a source, but if that's not feasible, you should opt for WP:BLPPROD. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per EricEnfermero's rationale. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: How is the article a "total failure of the general notability guidelines"? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Coverage for him, at least online, isn't too much, but it does exist. He also appears to have won some awards: this link from the Philippine Daily Inquirer suggested that he received a "Gawad Alagad ni Francisco Balagtas" award from a national writer's guild. There has also apparently been coverage about his books as well, some of which have been adapted into plays. This press release, although a press release, does seem to confirm that he has won other awards as well; other independent sources I could find also seem to confirm this. While the article needs some work, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Nye[edit]

Mitchell Nye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as he has no major roles (just small bit parts), no award wins or nominations, and coverage for him is practically non-existent. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON, no prominent roles except one in 2016 but that seems to be in a non-notable film Atlantic306 (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article has exactly 0 reliable sources. It is high time we delete all articles sourced only to IMDb. IMDb seeks to cover everyone who ever had a role in a film. We have a rule people need significant coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:TOOSOON for actor that currently fails WP:NACTOR. Operator873^CONNECT 03:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to DanDTM. As content was merged, the redirect has to be kept. In the future, please do not merge content until an AfD is complete. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DanTDM Creates a Big Scene[edit]

DanTDM Creates a Big Scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are YuTube and blogs. Nothing independent and reliable, Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dan is one of the rich and popular youtubers so notable, this series is not. The refs don't support this article, they are trivial in 3 cases with the 4th being a freelance report which while in depth doesn't have editorial oversight. I googled and came up with a similar scenario, trivial mentions but nothing to support gng. My son watches him regularly so I get to see a lot of him too - he's long since moved on to different stuff. Szzuk (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to DanTDM. Artw (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just merged it. Szzuk (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. YouTubers make all sorts of web series. This one doesn't have the episode critiquing or the independent sources to meet notability in television, only announcements that such a series exist. Looks like it was merged into a paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swans Commentary[edit]

Swans Commentary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only independent sources here are not actually about the website. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indepdent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Riott Squad[edit]

The Riott Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Also WP:TOOSOON. Nikki♥311 21:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Any argument for notability would be speculative. Feedback 00:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Absolutely the same reason as for Absolution. --Wybielacz (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No Reason to make pages for every team made in WWE unless they known for various achievements in WWE IE: The Usos, The New Day, The Shield, and The Wyatt Family. Also see reason on: Absolution -- SSGeorgie (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply existing is not enough to get an article, they need to pass WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all of the above. Nickag989^talk 18:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:ENT which per WP:NSPORT is our guideline on this. - Galatz^Talk 01:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A9. SoWhy 14:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snowdreams[edit]

Snowdreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Following the deletions at AfD of this song's parent album One Day in Spring and the band itself, Bandari, there is little reason to keep the remaining articles for songs and albums by this band: all of them are unreferenced and the text is original research, and there is no independent reliable information that I can find on the internet to show that these pass WP:SONG or WP:ALBUM, unless someone comes up with sources in Chinese (where the band were most popular). Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

The First Snowflakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mist (Bandari album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richard3120 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of them meet WP:NMUSIC. The Snowdroms is almost speedy material. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since article now meets A9 - band's article was Bandari (AVC) with related afd discussion closed as delete. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 05:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments about COI and suchlike have been discarded. The issue is sourcing and while there are not a lot of bolded comments the nature of the sourcing has been closely examined and the consensus is that they do not meet the GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VandeStreek[edit]

VandeStreek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seemingly non-notable regional brewery that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth coverage and notability. From my reading, no major awards have been won by the brewery (the company was awarded a forth place and "bronze" award in regional competitions) and a lack of news coverage outside of the Netherlands indicates a WP:GEOSCOPE failure. As far as depth of coverage is concerned, the vast majority of the article's content is in violation of WP:NOTSPAM, as it contains press releases, public relations, and announcements that could be seen as advertisements. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite the ongoing WP:COIN and possible WP:Arbcom case, I've made it clear that me creating VandeStreek was not a WP:PAID situation, let alone an undisclosed one. I hope that doesn't influence anyone in this discussion. @SamHolt6, two things: 1) WP:GEOSCOPE is about the notability of events, not companies. 2) I'm sorry, it annoys whenever I'm asked the same question, but I have to ask, did you take a moment to check the references used? To cite WP:NCORP, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". De Volkskrant, Algemeen Dagblad, NRC Handelsblad and RTV Utrecht are reliable independent news outlets. They are mentioned in Utrecht Hop!, a book about the Utrecht beer scene. To me, notability has been met. I've used the brewery's own website for information on some of their beers, if that's too much, I'd be happy to improve it further. Taking out any perceived promotional material should be the first step, as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. (— Note to closing admin: Soetermans (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. ) soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long response and a breakdown of each source incoming. As far as the article's sources are concerned, the first ([28]) covers the rise of special brewing in the Netherlands, and while it does mention the owners of VandeStreek, the article only uses them as an example and is primarily concerned with the large topic of special brewing. In source #2 ([29]), one of the owners of the brewery in question provides a list of his weekend activities, in which list he mentions his home-brewing history in passing. Source 3 ([30]) is a news article detailing the opening of the new VandeStreek brewery while also giving a brief history of the brewery. Source 4 ([31]) is a news story about the opening of a new brewery in Utrecht, and while information is given, the three paragraphs written do not go into any depth about the history or operation of VandeStreek. Source 5 ([32]) is the book Utrecht Hop!, which serves as a guide to the beers of Utrecht. The book lists VandeStreek as a brewery in Utrecht, but again does not provide significant coverage of the brewery, nor is the book actually about VandeStreek (therefore I would consider this a listing or a mention in passing). Source 6 ([33]) is the primary source of the article as well as the website of VandeStreek, as much of the information found on this site is reproduced in the other sources, which are mainly news articles. Source 7 ([34]) is a list of the 2016 dutch beer challenge, in which VandeStreek is mentioned (in name, no description) as the winner of a bronze metal for its Dark IPA. Note that the Dutch Beer Challenge began in 2015, and the award was given in 2016. Source 8 ([35]) is an article/review of beers made in Utrecht. VandeStreek is named here amoung 4 other beers as "misses" and no coverage is given to the article subject beyond a brief description of the beer. Source 9 ([36]) is brief story about an Italian ice cream made with VandeStreek beer. Source 10 ([37]) does not mention VandeStreek at all, but does mention an Utrecht produced beer used in an award-wining (4th place) Italian ice cream. Source 11 ([38]) is press release in a local newspaper detailing the opening of the VandeStreek brewery. A brief history of the company is given, but nothing in depth. Source 12 ([39]) is another, even briefer report on the opening of VandeStreek. Again nothing is added, and the same sections and quotes are used from source 11. Source 13 ([40]) is a press release announcing the launching of VandeStreeks non-alcohol IPA. Source 14 ([41]) is a list of tastiest alcohol-free beers, in which VandeStreek is briefly mentioned as a contender.Source 15 ([42]) is a press release from VandeStreek itself announcing a product. And source 16 ([43]) is a story from a dutch newsite in which VandeStreek's summer ale is judged to be the best in Utrecht, but no information is given about the actual brewery. In my view, the sources provided violate WP:GEOSCOPE, as they are all are Dutch newspapers reporting on a regional event (in this case, the brewery's activities). It is to be noted that (to my knowledge) no sources cited about VandeStreek are outside of the Netherlands. In addition, no information provided by the sources is in-depth, as they mostly re-tread what is provided by VandeStreek's website. To my knowledge, only a few paragraphs of information exist about the brewery, and all of this information comes from a primary source. If we were to remove the WP:NOTSPAM content, there would be nothing left to the article in question. I also believe that, given how little coverage of substance exits about VandeStreek, it should be considered non-notable and unencyclopedic.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're again saying it fails WP:GEOSCOPE. That notability guideline is clearly about events, not about the activities of companies. You're dismissing reliable sources because they are in Dutch, that's not the WP:GLOBAL aim of the English-language Wikipedia. You're entitled to your opinion, and if you believe it fails notability is one thing, but that you keep citing an unrelated guideline and would remove everything, including said reliable sources, makes me doubt your objectivity in this AfD. @Softlavender, TonyBallioni, and Jytdog, as editors involved with my COIN/Arbcom case, could you take a look? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the text of WP:GEOSCOPE, "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." As far as the Dutch news articles cited by the article are concerned, the activities of VandeStreek (such as the opening of the brewery, the launching of a new beer, etc) are events. While the GEOSCOPE guideline is for events and not companies, if we do not consider the activities and operations of a small company notable, why should the company be considered notable, especially when next to no other information exists? This also does not solve the main issue I have, in that the article has very little substance outside of WP:NOTSPAM content.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a different interpretation of WP:GEOSCOPE, which clearly is not in the text. From GEOSCOPE, italics my emphasis:

An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". The subject of the article is a brewery, not an event. That I've used sources that describe something that happens with the subject is not the subject either, but to describe its history and development. Sources like De Volkskrant and Algemeen Handelsblad that describe the history is not SPAM. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m in agreement with you that your first two sources are not spam, but having read through them (and I would request other editors do the same) nothing indicated to me that the article subject was particularly notable. Yes, they described the rise of a small local brewery, but I am still of the opinion that no real notability was establiahed by these articles. Note that these news articles were not of significant depth or length. VandeStreek has yet to attain significant coverage, nor has it shown itself to be different from countless other breweries by establishing an immediate or lasting impact in the industry. As far as the other sources are concerned, I still believe that events such as the launching of a new beer or the opening of a new location that is not reported on outside of the subject’s regional area fails to meet GEOSCOPE. And even if my GEOSCOPE argument is stuck down, I fail to see the notabliy of the subject due to a lack of in-depth coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only policy I'll quote is WP:NOADS and it sure looks like advertising to me. But really why I recommend deleting is just the size. I decided to compare production volume with a microbrewery that I've visited and know (deep in my smallest bones) that is just too small for a Wikipedia article. (Its brewery could fit on a parking lot for say 8 cars) Looking up the stats I found out it does have a Wikipedia article and produces 6,000 US BBLs per year. VandeStreek produces 340 US BBLs per year (about 5% of the other brewery). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones, to WP:NOADS I'll again cite WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. WP:Breweries does not say anything about output. You yourself are comparing another vandeStreek with another microbrewery that you visited, and you've come to the conclusion that vandeStreek's production three years ago is not enough. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Wikipedia:Notability (breweries) is an essay, not policy.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't feel like the subject is being given a fair treatment here, just because of my fuck ups with paid editing. @SamHolt6 added the COI tag, when there was already a tag for possible undisclosed paid editing (which I've stated before that it wasn't), was rather quick to nominate both Arne & Carlos and vandeStreek for deletion and keeps citing GEOSCOPE, which is not about companies. @Smallbones on the other hand was also involved in the COIN discussion and is judging the subject by comparing their own experiences. I'm pinging @Czar, Masem, and Sergecross73, three uninvolved admins that I've known for years through WP:VG. They might also vote delete, but I have faith in them that their judgement won't be clouded. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some more searching, I haven't got the time right now to add them properly to the article, but here are some more sources, including international ones, which are clearly independent of the subject, without any "promotional" tone to them.

• UK website BeerGuild mentions them
• Polish Jerry Brewery does too
• The World Beer Awards entries on Dark Roast, Koper and BlackBock
• Esquire's Hong Kong website mentions vandeStreek's alcohol free IPA
• Dutch newspaper and website AD.nl mentions them again
• Stichting Erfgoed Nederlandse Biercultuur (Foundation Heritage Dutch Beer Culture) has an entry on them
• Ronald van de Streek is interviewed by consumers' rights TV program Kassa on alcohol free beers.

I'll try to add them to the article as soon as possible. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BeerGuild ([44]) article is a press release announcing an international collaboration brewing event. Note that in the article VandeStreek is listed as a "participating brewery", so the independence of the article should be taken with a grain of malt. [45] mentions VandeStreek among several other breweries participating in a regional brewing event, but does not discuss the brewery in depth. The hong kong esquire article [46] likewise mentions a VandeStreek beer (among many others) as an example of non-alcoholic beers, but does not provide in depth coverage of VandeStreek. This local news article [47] is entirely trivial, as it mentions only that local breweries (inducing VandeStreek) are donating stolen barrels of beer after a robbery. [48] provides the brief history of the VandeStreek brewery, but I should be noted that this organization (the nederlandsebiercultuur) acts akin to a chamber of commerce, and provides addresses and contact information for breweries. Keeping WP:AUD in mind for the English Wikipedia, I again question the notability of a small dutch brewery. The information provided by nederlandsebiercultuur is also a retread of information that can be found on VandeStreek's website, and again it does not establish the encyclopedic notability of the brewery. The same goes for the interview on a dutch television channel ([49]) which discusses the brewery's plans for its non-alcoholic beer.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Keeping WP:AUD in mind for the English Wikipedia, I again question the notability of a small dutch brewery"? What? You again have an incorrect reading of Wikipedia guidelines, as WP:AUD, italics my emphasis, says "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". That's what it says. It says nothing that sources should be available in English, it says nothing about the notability of a Dutch brewery. Concerning AUD, I've used several national newspapers' websites, which you disregard. I've used local websites. I've even found a mention by the Hong Kong Esquire, yet you keep on repeating that vandeStreek is WP:FARAWAY. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is the key. The Hong Kong Esquire source lists a VandeStreek beer among 9 other beers and gives no indication of the significance of the company. The description of the beer in the article is shorter than this response is. Certainly a trivial mention.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's already "significant coverage" by other sources, remember what AUD says? National newspaper Algemeen Dagblad's website AD.nl has a piece on them! I mentioned Esquire Hong Kong again because of your WP:FARAWAY tunnel vision, your incorrect reading of first GEOSCOPE and now AUD. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - per above, I was pinged by Soetermans. Yes, I know him, and have worked with him in the past, but only on video game articles. I have no preconceived notions on Netherlands breweries though, but have participated in hundreds and hundreds of AFDs, so I think I can give an unbiased stance here. The closing Admin can decide on that though. I'll give a stance, but will need some time to look into the subject first, as again, I'm not familiar with it. I can say though, that I disagree with the notion that the article is currently promotionally written. I'm sure someone could point out a thing or two that could be tweaked, and they may be right, but its be just that, minor rewordings, not an insurmountable problem affecting the core content of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Geoscope is not the correct criteria; however WP:AUD, which says a similar thing for corporations is a thing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do see one dutch national newspaper - "de volkskrant". Being dutch newspapers doesn't mean they are regional/local newspapers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm having a hard time coming to an !vote on this, but some conclusions I have so far:

• WP:GEOSCOPE does not apply - that's for events. Breweries aren't events. I can't believe the arguments went anything beyond that.
• The article is not overly promotional in its tone or content, nor is there any specific evidence that Soetermans has any sort of COI connection to the subject.
• I don't even believe WP:AUD or any of the "local coverage only" variant arguments apply really, if they're being recognized for "World Beer Awards" or by Esquire of Hong Kong when the subject is from the Netherlands.

• So really, my only hang up is whether or not they meet the plain old WP:GNG. There's a lot of sources being discussed, but many appear to be passing mentions or database entries. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Call (demo album)[edit]

Freedom Call (demo album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It has has a notability notice on it for 3 years, and no effort has been made to establish notability. I think this is long enough for us to now know it is not notable. Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the band's page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK seems fair, merge. Not that I am sure there is much to merge.Slatersteven (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's very little material to incorporate, but at least this way, the page can be made into a redirect to Freedom Call#Founding (1997-1998). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why a redirect is needed, no one is going to look for a non notable demo tape, they will look for the notable band. There can (as far as I can see) be any valid reason for keeping this page. Deletion and moving whatever material is useful into the main article is (to my mind) the only valid choice.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a nn demo album. There's absolutely nothing to merge here. Not even worth a redirect as "Freedom Call" would bring up the band in the search window. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Freedom Call#Founding (1997-1998). Pageview stats show a few hits every month. As this is a few years old, it would be nice to preserve any possible incoming links from external websites. Jujutacular (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy J. Thomas[edit]

Roy J. Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of general biographical notability. The sources included in the article contain passing mentions at best. Doesn't qualify for WP:PROF due to apparent lack of academic career. Rentier (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable as an academic or non-profit director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I don't see anything here to indicate he meets WP:PROF. I don't get this notion that just because someone is a professor that automatically qualifies them for an article. Most are little more than glorified & overpaid teachers. Also since the accounts that created this article have no other contributions, there is likely a conflict of interest.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Localizing the SDGs[edit]

Localizing the SDGs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be purely an essay rather than an article. Nick Number (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Despite the large list of citations, there is very little in terms of reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. The content is also unencyclopaedic, to the point that the page would require a full re-write before being suitable for display here. I think that the useful content could be salvaged and placed in a section on the Sustainable Development Goals article. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not an encyclopedia article and appears as more of an essay. If there is any content worth saving, pop it into Sustainable Development Goals. Also, AnnaEstrada, please be aware of WP:CANVASS, per your user talk page posts. I don't see anything egregious, but it is worth being aware of the guideline. !dave 17:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photojournalism in North Korea[edit]

Photojournalism in North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an essay, and a POV fork of Media coverage of North Korea. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, instead of deletion, is it possible to merge with Media coverage of North Korea?. --Rodelar (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is valid subject, and the page looks like valid addition to Human rights in North Korea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has reliable sources referenced relevant encyclopedic content that is enough for a standalone article , passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M13 (Investment Company)[edit]

M13 (Investment Company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Written by now blocked sock puppet and COI editor (earlier PROD removed by another blocked paid editor). The firm pretty much only gets passing mention in sources mentioning it rather than true secondary coverage. Nothing particular passes WP:ORGDEPTH, and most of the source discussion doesn't really rise above WP:FART territory for business-related topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Two guys pitching other deals while they scout for a new opportunity? Nah. Rhadow (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Any pertinent information can be merged from the page history as long as proper attribution is maintained. Jujutacular (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Perconte[edit]

Frank Perconte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Frank Perconte was a soldier in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; his rank (technician fourth grade) and highest award (Bronze Star) make him non-notable under WP:SOLDIER. His post-war career as a postal worker earned him no significant coverage. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable; as with most all of the others. redirect name to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Kierzek (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being in a company that received lots of coverage just does not make all its members notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Had a long obit in the Chicago Tribune, but never did anything notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) and transclude/merge any pertinent info into there as needed. No justification for abrogation of NSOLDIER guidelines in this case. South Nashua (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnaz Fatima[edit]

Mahnaz Fatima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unfortunately there is no coverage in reliable sources for her. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing in RS. Being professor in an institute doesn't automatically qualify one to have a standalone article. she is the recipient of some awards but all are unnoteworthy. And there is no source which verifies the claim Dr. Fatima is considered amongst the most respected professors in Pakistan. two cited sources are not independent of the subject. she have co-authored some books but they are non-notable as well. in short, i don't see her career is in itself notable enough. there is some coverage in G'books but nothing of significance about her. --Saqib (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing at all indicates a passing of any of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Institute of Chemical Engineers[edit]

Pakistan Institute of Chemical Engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing significant in my searches. Mentioned in this letter. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete it appears to fail meeting WP:ORG because there is no coverage in RS. unless someone demonstrate that this volunteer led body has received some attention or coverage from reliable independent sources, it could be deleted safely. I also would like to point out that there are Institute of Chemical Engineers in several other counties such as Iran, Israel, Korea, Philippines, Japan, Taiwan but they don't have standalone articles on Wikipedia for the reason Existence ≠ Notability. But because this organisation has been named in at least one Letters to newspapers, i may only suggest Weak delete. --Saqib (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete such organizations are largely non notable in any country because they only conduct annual meetings and largely are subsets of Science Academies. No sources that can take this to meet WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:GNG. Even the American one is largely sourced with primary sources feom their website despite American media hegemony but no independent sources. If we go with the template if this article then all other countries can have stub created with one external link of the association which shows existence. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadozai Qaumi Welfare Organization[edit]

Sadozai Qaumi Welfare Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing in my searches. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notatable organization formed because of single event. No coverage in independent sources failing WP:GNG and lack of multiple sources means not even near WP:ORGDEPTH. Search also only yielded the article and its WP mirrors. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Connor (author, born 1944)[edit]

Michael O'Connor (author, born 1944) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage of this motivational speaker/author to meet GNG nor do I believe any of his published works qualify him for NAUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I don't see anything notable here.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another of many, many, many promotional articles on non-notable motivational speakers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete many many many........ Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 23:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is one more promotional text masquerading as an encyclopaedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun Congress of Pakistan[edit]

Pashtun Congress of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pernom fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep User is mass submitting pakistani based articles while not conducting WP:BEFORE see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nazia_Hassan_FoundationEgaoblai (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no such organisation in RS therefore it appears to be non notable. Also there is nothing about its founder Haji Abdul Wali Khan Khilji anywhere in RS. --Saqib (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per two-thirds of the above; point of order to Egaoblai, there is nothing wrng with doing that (if indeed it is a "mass" submission- you mention only one other article!) as long as it is not disruptive. And submitting- mass or not- non-notable articles for consideration by the community is clearly not. Just FYI bro! Now, if, say, User:Winged Blades of Godric came along (being he that closed that you mention above) and grandly declared "an abundance of sources" again, I would doubtless meekly accept the posit and change my !vote. But I can't see sheeaat right now  ;) ----->SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 00:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I was pinged by 54129 my take on this AFD is delete.The procedural keep has nothing to do with my closing of a part. AfD which was clearly a bad nomination heading for a snow and had enough sources unlike the case over here.And from Alex's closure of the AN thread, I take the liberty to assume that the AFDs already launched by Greenborg shall proceed normally on individual merit.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question was the subject of an complaint, in which it was found that their "longstanding pattern of periodical mass nominations in AfD is problematic, and has been pointed out as such by numerous other users in the past several months...", They appear to have been nominating articles without due diligence and WP:BEFORE, essentially forcing others to do it for them, which I'm sure is a violation of Wiki rules. Hence a recommendation for a procedural keep. I'll admit their isn't a lot of english language sources, it seems to appear in a few google books listing organizations, but I think we need search in vernacular sources too, something which I cannot do. Does anyone in this AFD proposal speak Urdu or Pashto? because that is what we really need here before going forward. I found this article, but I can't read it. http://www.bbc.com/pashto/mobile/world/2012/02/120206_baloch_usa_congress.shtml Egaoblai (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roomi S. Hayat[edit]

Roomi S. Hayat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing in my searches. Fails WP:GNG. WP is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Störm (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable person. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article should never have made it past AFC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bio of non notable person. Two sources relies on his WP:INTERVIEW. Two sources shows error messages. Sources number, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 (including one dead) are not about him but about a particular organization he is involved with and all sourced with the organization's website. Sources 2, 4, 5 and 6 are also more about the organization than him, Sources 3 and 2 are his own presented paper and interview. News search shows there is no sufficient independent sources to establish notability here, if any article will exist may be (with some more sources) the organization but not this person.–Ammarpad (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Abundance of sources. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 05:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazia Hassan Foundation[edit]

Nazia Hassan Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing in my searches. Fails WP:GNG. Much is about Nazia Hassan. Störm (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 20:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 20:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and a recommendation for the user to slow down their AFD submitting. A quick google search reveals plenty of notable articles in independent media about the foundation. I will add them here and the submitter, Storm, can add them in order to improve the article. https://images.dawn.com/news/1176170, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/hollywood/news/Nazia-Hassan-Foundation-to-be-set-up-next-month/articleshow/18044381.cms, http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/meera/20031016.htm, https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1150629 .Egaoblai (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your work. But we need reliable sources whereas last two of your are 'not reliable' per WP:RS. There is not enough coverage for stand-alone article instead there are some trivial mentions so this fails WP:NORG (which you want to read). ATD is to redirect to Nazia Hassan. Störm (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Other coverage of the organisation here [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]. And agree with Egaoblai's comment (see Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#User consistently disrupting AfD process). Mar4d (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)][reply]

A think a *Procedural block* on the recent slew of articles for deletion submitted about Pakistani related NGOS is needed. The user is clearly not following WP:BEFORE.Egaoblai (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article should be kept for the above stated reasons and it should be improved with references. ATM, the article is unreferenced.  sami  ^talk 09:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep –Because absence of reference in an article is cannot strip it of notability and is invalid reason for deletion per this existing guideline. And passing GNG is sure here; apart from the multiple sources from editors above (disproving your "nothing in my search") here is another from Pakistan's Tribune and more indepth report from UAE's respected paper Khaleej Times. I also join the editors above to advise the nom to heed this ANI advise and stop this "tagerted" and plethoric nomination which both disrupt the fair process and deprive editors of time to asses the merit of each nomination due to huge number. I am afraid another ANI thread about the same problem may not end up with another advise only. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Animation Museum[edit]

Azerbaijan Animation Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. The 3 sources are 100% identical. A copy paste of a press release from the Azertac which is the state news agency. Domdeparis (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. poor article quality is not a reason to delete. is there a wikiproject Museum, animation or azerbaijan you can post this article to?Egaoblai (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Now, I'm willing to accept that there might be hard sources out there which we can't see; but saving that, because no-one has suggested there are, then this complete lackof news sources, and this collection of a very few bizarrely irrelevant books, I'm afraid = no general notability. ----->SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 00:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 23:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Activity (U.S. TV series)[edit]

No Activity (U.S. TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references. Does not satisfy television notability. Too little information to be encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject has significant coverage per [56] [57] KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to CBS All Access No Activity#American adaptation unless we get expansion in the next seven days; as-is the article is completely WP:ITEXISTS without much elaboration. Nate • (chatter) 21:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to No Activity#American adaptation, the Australian original on which the U.S. version is based, where it already has a section -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect –Since no enough content for standalone page now, and it already has section in No Activity#American adaptation –Ammarpad (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, many reviews online. Should be updated, not deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MUSTBESOURCES –Ammarpad (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. I'm not saying there must be/probably are sources, I'm saying there are many sources. A quick Google search illustrates enough significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There has been a considerable amount of coverage among various reputable sources. It needs time to continue to be updated. Should not be deleted. BoogerD (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MUSTBESOURCES –Ammarpad (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has been greatly improved and sourced since submission here. — Wyliepedia 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it now has references to significant content in reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Los Angeles Times, passses WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Sarwar[edit]

Farhan Sarwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing in the reliable sources. WP is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is promotional BLP which contains OR. The subject is founder of non-notable organizations except one and have no significant coverage in RS. The coverage in RS and this BLP discuss more about the organisations than about the subject himself. It can be safely deleted or otherwise can be merged with Bilqees Sarwar Foundation at best. --Saqib (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin. We need to very proactively kill articles that move it in that direction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could not have said it better myself, mr. jp lambert. The promotional single purpose accounts that plague us have apparently zero comprehension that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA that anybody can edit, not just another free web hosting service. – Athaenara ✉ 05:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bittu Bhaizee[edit]

Bittu Bhaizee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced and non-notable. MT Train^Discuss 17:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete total lack of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely no mention in reliable sources; I'm not unconvinced it's not a WP:HOAX, although a subject like this may well exist from time before the written word. But, per WP:N- perhaps when WP:BIAS is sorted out- this is currently an amount of non-notability. ----->SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 00:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jhelum Networks[edit]

Jhelum Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no coverage at least in my searches. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 02:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghani burger[edit]

Afghani burger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

notability unclear Mardetanha (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article is already well-sourced. Störm (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "notability unclear" is not valid reason for deletion. It is very important to do WP:BEFORE. before AfDing. Currently the article have sources that meet WP:GNG and in addition more sources here, and another coverage from Pakistan's two largest and most-read English newspapers Dawn newspaper and The Tribune –Ammarpad (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:AQU Egaoblai (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mainframe computer. Actually closed as merge but since editorial judgement is needed in deciding what to merge I’m just doing the redirect. Merge away. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big iron[edit]

Big iron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG, DICDEF, NEO. I couldn't find anything after a brief search to improve the article. South Nashua (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Big iron still king", computerworld.com, "The age of big iron", Brittanica.com, "IBM turns to big iron again", itpro.co.uk, "IBM turns to Big Iron to revive sagging fortunes", ft.com, 10 things I miss about Big Iron, techrepublic.com. Sources (and this is not an exhaustive list) seem to verify this is well established jargon. Kleuske (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter how well established the jargon is, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not an acceptable topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • <snark>Some may refer to those machine as "Old Iron", though...</snark> Kleuske (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:::@Kleuske: Thanks! In that case, I'm happy to withdraw this if the article can be salvaged. South Nashua (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC) (see below)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all the article claims is that there is a (slang dictionary type) term used for a certain sort of object. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT) and this is just a dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), the article should not be here. That's the policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough coverage to merit a standalone article, fails WP:N and GNG. Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT and the best this can be is a dictionary term because there is already an extensive article on mainframe computers. Sources indicate the nomenclature, "Big Iron", is a nickname for the various mainframe computer models and a sentimental indicator for nostalgia. I recommend writing a section in the Wikipedia article entitled "Mainframe computer" on this subject. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in other words you are suggesting merge, not delete. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be fine with a redirect per Steve's recommendation here using Kleuske's refs as an additional section in that article. South Nashua (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Mainframe computer. The scenario is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bare-metal server, though a less modern term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Valid piece of history. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ihave alwaysunderstood this as standard terminology.Perhaps that's not evidence, but ... DGG ( talk ) 10:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HindWiki^Connect 23:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line the Label[edit]

Line the Label (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable clothing brand that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Has a claim to notability as some news outlets commented on Meghan Markle's wearing of a jacket from this brand, but next to no other coverage exists. I dont feel that this single instance of notability warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per this lot. Just please try not to cite the Daily Mail when expanding it..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• no indication of any lasting significance - all coverage is a one time media blip re a single event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• While the company has been very much in the news lately there are lots of articles online and offline in reliable ibdependent sources from prior years. here are a few. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  notability is not inherited. just because theer are sources that mention the brand, they're not really about the brand. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the sources in that search, or did you just do the politician's trick of answering the question you'd like to answer instead? The very first hit in that search is this piece from 2014 in the Vancouver Sun which is entirely about the company. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete per nom. maybe revisit in 6 mos? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERNOM. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article has been substantially transformed from this shoddy state when nominating to now this with multiple independent references. These reference are reliable and enough to meet GNG. Careful WP:BEFORE would have also prevented this. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG and CORPDEPTH, multiple non-trivial sources, predating the Meghan Markle coverage.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- this may be akin to the WP:BIO1E situation for the brand, but it looks like they are here to stay. This Vanity Fair article discusses the coat, which has been renamed as The Markle, and notes that Kate's engagement dress has its own Wikipedia page: Meghan Markle’s Fashion Choices Are a Boon to Her Adopted Canada: Many are noticing that the Markle Effect has a Canadian ripple. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. no indication of any importance as a designer; al references but the Sun are celebrity gossip. Having designed one not very important jacket that happens to have been worn by someone very much in the news is not notability. The article specifically says it was that one triviality which made her famous.

I am also calling attention the decision of the author to lobby for the retention of the article on User talk:Jimbo Wales. It is, admittedly, a very effective way of attracting attention. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph and Reuters are not "celebrity gossip", that's specifically why I asked people not to cite the Daily Mail, which has pages and pages of Line the Label related gossipy waffle. The problem you've got is that a) the company appears to have been called "Line" or "Line Knitwear" in sources until very recently, so try and do a search on that b) the association with Meghan Markle has drowned out everything else, meaning you probably won't find it on page one of a Google News search unless you do some clever ninja-style querying. (I've dropped a few pre-2017 news sources into the article just now to illustrate that). Regards your last paragraph, the place to go is WP:ANI; here the discussion is buried and people are not likely to see it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Can't say I like all this celebrity stuff but fair is fair: this label meets WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bt it fails NTABLOID--not everything notable is suitable for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The canonical essay I like to cite is User:Uncle G/On notability - "Wikipedia is not a directory. It is an encyclopaedia. It is notability that stops Wikipedia from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopaedia." You can't both be right! Quick British newspapers 101 for those who can't be bothered to wade through the WP:RSN archives - BBC News = fine, but stuff by Laura Kuenssberg seems to be controversial for some reason, The Times = fine, Financial Times = fine, Daily Telegraph = fine, but watch out for the pro-Tory bias, Guardian = fine, but watch out for the pro-Labour bias, Independent = per the Guardian, The Sun = junk, Daily Star = junk, Daily Mirror = best avoided, Daily Express = avoid if you can, especially on anything Brexit-related, Daily Mail = you must be joking, Sunday Sport = are you on drugs? There are no tabloid newspapers cited in this article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All this is under my opinion but otherwise not related since based on different tests. gidonb (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my own statement above I have trimmed the exaggerated claims and focus on celebrities from the article. gidonb (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been expanded, includes a reasonable number of sources, and seems to be notable as well, as it meets the general criteria for notability. Keivan.f^Talk 02:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Peek[edit]

Jeff Peek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable business person with no significant coverage. Only real claim here is working for CIT group and being married to Liz Peek. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, as per WP:NOTINHERITED the notability of Peek's employer and wife do not confer notability on himself.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Very substantial coverage in lots of media over many years. I've linked here to some for your convenience. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very numerous, not substantive. Most sources that turn up for Peek are either press releases about his joining CIT group, or are about how he destroyed the CIT.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very numerous and very substantive. There are articles about his career and getting passed over for CEO position at Merrill Lynch. Articles on his taking on the CEO role at CIT Group in 2003. Articles on problems at CIT Group and his departure from the firm in 2009. Articles revisiting his tenure leading up to the financial crisis and company's bailing out. Articles on his later joining Bank of America. All subatantial and about this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on...? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a 30 second google search. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.... and for, in the words of Full Metal Jacket, screwing the American economy up the ass and not have the goddam courtesy to give the country a reacharound. Have a look at the article now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. If nothing else, there are multiple targets to redirect to (Liz Peek and CIT Group) which really makes keeping the only option left. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing shows rising to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]