< 11 December	13 December >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nation One News Foundation[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP user, who presented the following reasoning Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC):[reply]

In conjunction with the above request to nominate Michael Moates for deletion, so too do I nominate this page. It's Moates' website, similarly of no notability whatsoever, and its entire page is self-promoting and full of citations from the website itself. I also recommend that those who take up these AfD's look into a possible WP:COI for Jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs). since they created both of these articles. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 23:09, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If the claimed topic is a foundation, then the article fails WP:V. If the claimed topic is a website, then the article fails WP:GNG. If the claimed topic is a publication, then the article fails WP:MOS (what's the difference between its and it's?) Rhadow (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Organization is a 501(c)3 not for profit news organization. Outside of White House press creds they cover Congress, the United Nations, and numerous other events. Notability is established by the sources cited. Also, you can view more information about the non-profit here: https://www.guidestar.org/profile/81-5387073 Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the substantial coverage over time needed to establish notability beyond your mundane flash-in-the-pan website or media company. It's been mentioned in a few news reports (mainly on the fringe), but nowhere is there substantial, in-depth writing about the company. The references included in the article are very weak - of the reliable sources, i.e. the closer-to-mainstream news sources, most don't mention Nation One News or Narrative News at all (but please prove me wrong with links to good coverage in something that isn't Facebook). Being a 501(c)3 organisation or "cover[ing] events" does not guarantee notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable blog. The fact that USA Today and others may cite a part of a blog's reporting does not grant it notability, there has to be actual, independent, verifiable sources on the blog itself. While USA Today is nice, most of the name-drops are to fringe trash like worlnetdaily or truthexam.com, or to facebook of all things. As noted in the discussion for Moates himself, once this closes as a likely delete, I'd like to draw participants' attention to the White House press corps where the article creator and a friend tag-team edit-warred to include Moates and his organization into the listing, which IMO is unwarranted to to both subject and organization's non-notability. ValarianB (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive name checking with notable sources to create illusion of notability. Excessive use of primary website, unreliable Facebook sources, unreliable tabloid sources. No independent coverage for bulk of text, mixup of sources. All this is because the organization is not notable. Fails many WP:NWEB but more importantly fails WP:GNG because no reliable sources, once you remove namechekingnwith passing mentions–Ammarpad (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Facebook is not a reliable source, and various news organisations citing a news report produced by this organization does not constitute notability, because there is no in depth coverage of the organization itself. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a nn blog; WP:TOOSOON. Lacks reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Request administrator not delete but put back in draft so the article can continue to be improved. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesharrison2014: No, the organization is generally not notable. Perhaps it will be in the future see WP:TOOSOON. also if something is not notable, moving it back to draft will not make any change see WP:AMOUNT. Then finally there is very seriou case of WP:PROMO against core Wikipedia policy. The only pages you edited are four and exhibited behavior incompatible with Wikipedia policies. Some highlights:.
You created Michael Moates, the director of the organization.
You created the organizations article Nation One News Foundation earlier.
You then edit-warred at White House press corps to insert the director.
You then asked for the page to be fully protected so as to save your preferred version.
Your self-serving request was declined.
You reverted the Admin who declined the request.
You continued edit-warring at Talk:White House press corps after your declined request.
You made another request at RFPP to protect your own version.
I can go on, but let me stop here. Your behavior suggest totally you're here to advertise and advocate for Michael Moates and his organization. But you can change. You can become WP:HERE and help build an encyclopedia. But all these promotional pages will be deleted, we don't move spams fo draft. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of third party coverage. Billhpike (talk) 20:30, 15 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skokka[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as spam Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly promotional, no plausible evidence of actual notability (among world's top 150 erotic websites? Not notable, really). --Orange Mike | Talk 04:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the creator of the article. I created it because I found it to be pretty interesting how a website with millions in visitors and traffics had no information in Wikipedia, when news sites all around the globe consider it an equal to pages like Backpage [1][2] and even dedicate their time to talk about them [3][4]. When it comes to Spanish speaking media there are tons of articles and press releases that talk about them, [5][6][7][8], to name a few. I understand it may have flaws since it is my first article, and I'd appreciate if you could point them so I can try and fix them, but I believe it fits within the impartial and informative topics that are covered in Wikipedia. --AnitaDinamita (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you say and it makes me feel like I'm still too naive analising references. So for example I think this link [9] of a recently posted article would demonstrate the fact that they are expanding as they mention. It also talks about a visits volume, though it's not the same from the ones I obtained, and about an exclusive feature in comparison to their competitors I didn't know they offered, which is a call center and a free 24-hour attention service. Wouldn't it be informative as it specifies data about the company? AnitaDinamita (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the creator has made a good faith effort here, but it's still not good enough. There is no substantive coverage in reliable sources, that is required to meet WP:GNG. Furthermore, some of the content is still promotional in nature: "It started small, centred in the world of escorts within a country, but not long after their launch they began with a worldwide expansion that keeps going as of now." The last section also falls foul of WP:NOR. Vanamonde (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like promotional copy and is therefore a case of WP:PROMO. Looking at the references provided above, they are a mix of brief mentions or promotional content based on press releases so WP:GNG is not passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – promotional piece on subject that lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:04, 19 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) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Møl Dalsgaard[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Lacks references from reliable sources. Body of work per IMDB shows few notable works. PK T(alk) 23:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 23:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 23:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article may have notability yet to be demonstrated. Just like the person's last film won the "Venice Days Award and was screened at Toronto and IDFA", the rest of the documentaries might have other awards and screenings. Otherwise, or if such sources aren't included, Delete --Jamez42 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not likely to ever be notable. NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He might achieve notability sometime down the line, but the point is that he hasn't done so yet, IMO. PK T(alk) 01:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not as of yet a notable filmmaker. He could create new work that propels him to notability, or some of his current work could get lots more coverage, but until either of those happens he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON. GNG. Just mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:56, 15 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. Consensus is clearly that Michael Moates is not (yet) the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In addition, this article is in part a recreation of an article previously deleted at the previous AfD. I've temporarily salted the title to prevent rapid re-re-creation. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP user, who presented the following reasoning Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC):[reply]

This article has been created and deleted twice before already; it's back up for a third time, yet still does not contain anything of notability that justifies its creation. Just as with the first two times, it reeks of WP:PROMO, among many other things. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Ugh. First you have to read through a score of references to find out who he really works for. Then the references list has to be pared for all the self-referential entries. Then you have to search the White House Correspondent's Association website to discover whether he's been thrown out yet. The result will be the outing of a crank. Then disassembly of the walled garden. Rhadow (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the difference between the White House press corps and the White House Correspondents Association which are two seperate intenties. One is run by the United States Government and one is a non-profit organization. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: jamesharrison2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Weak Delete- I guess the question that has to be answered is, does membership in the White House Press Corps give a person notability? Based on the fact that we don't have articles for a lot of the members, I guess the answer is no. His White House Press Corps membership would be the only possible claim of notability that I see.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rusf10 -- On July 21, 2017, Moates was sitting in the sixth row of the briefing room. He is wearing a lanyard. The folks in the front row aren't, probably because they have hard passes -- biennial passes to enter the White House, and only issued after a similar pass is issued for the press galleries in Congress. More likely Moates had a day pass described here [1]. "Day passes for a trip to the press room require little more effort than submitting some personal information to the White House."

I wrongly assumed that this page was accurate White House press corps. A closer look reveals the source for Michael Moates is this: [2].--Rusf10 (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page is accurate. Some choose to take off their badges during the briefings but can be seen wearing them.

https://s-i.huffpost.com/gen/2865754/images/o-OBAMA-PRESS-CORPS-facebook.jpg https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/589b9d562900002200f2541c.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: jamesharrison2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Keep- Moates is a regular correspondent. He can be seen in multiple briefings. Notability is dicribed as having mutiple sources showing "significant coverage" per wikipedia:notability these sources include The White House, ABC, NBC, Fox, etc... constant coverage of the White House from inside the press corps. Futhermore wikipedia:notability says if you have a notability problem to place the notability tag. ((notability)) This article is far from completed and sources are still being added.

Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: jamesharrison2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of coverage about him, not by simply being seen at briefings. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject here is notability. Does regular reporting of the White House constitute notability. After doing some research I learned not only does he attend the briefings but he is in constant communication with the former and current White House press secretaries.

See links - https://www.facebook.com/michaelsmoates/photos/a.1955931344634780.1073741828.1945837408977507/2049779095250004/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/realmichaelmoates/posts/952450918237484 https://www.facebook.com/realmichaelmoates/posts/946530845496158

He also meets the notability requirements for Facebook verification. Link - https://www.facebook.com/michaelsmoates/

2600:1700:70E0:3EE0:C539:469B:E2F7:5A07 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Moates is very clever. If he chooses a career in politics, he will go far. He has identified a collection of data sources to seed with weak facts, then harvest proof of the notability of his organization. Above, there is an assertion that Facebook verification is somehow indicative of notability. The IRS recognized non-profit status for The Narrative News, Inc. in September 2017. The organization signed up for GuideStar Platinum status, allowing it use the GuideStar badge. Never mind that the organization has never filed an annual return with the IRS. There is no way to independently confirm that the organization has ever generated any revenue, charitable or not. Similarly, Moates claims to be a "regular" member of the White House Press Corps. He can be clearly identified in at least one video. Regular is hard to define. It is possible that he holds a hard pass to the White House, but it's more likely he applied for, and received, day passes. On the basis of a visit or two (remember, he is a putative full-time university student), an assertion is made in White House press corps that he is a regular member. The reference was not independent. Then his own website harvests an image of the WP article and posts it to demonstrate credibility. That is using WP to promote one's own cause. It is all the truth, and nothing but the truth. But every piece is just barely the truth. The result is a Potemkin Village.

Genius! A photo of three people had a descriptive title attached when it was posted to wikimedia commons, "File:Michael Moates Half-time Interview with Taya Kyle and Huffington Post Photojournalist Daishia Pratt.png." A photo proves Moates was with Kyle and Pratt. It proves nothing about the conduct of an interview. The result, though, is that Google prefills the search bar with "Michael Moates Huffingon Post".

Comment It is worth noting that 2600:1700:70E0:3EE0:C539:469B:E2F7:5A07 (talk · contribs) posted writhing minutes of jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) and that the IP geolocates to Ft Worth, near where Moates is said to live. I hear a quacking sound. Billhpike (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the surface and you'll discover it's WP:TOOSOON for Moates and Nation One News Foundation. He's not so much a regular WH reporter as an occasional visitor. Its not so much a foundation as a group with an approved application. If one were to ask the hard questions, like,. "How many WH press briefings did you attend in 2017?", or "How much revenue has The Narrative News Inc generated this year?", the story would be much less compelling. Strip away the Facebook references and the sources written by Moates and there's not much left. Rhadow (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO because he has not received in-depth coverage in reliable sources (somebody's blog or Facebook is not a reliable source; tabloid newspapers or online publications with similar standards of fact checking are not reliable sources). Being a journalist doesn't guarantee notability - this is proven by many precedents and implied by WP:JOURNALIST. The article has lots of references but most are one-line mentions at best. What the references prove is that he's less famous than some woman who pissed on a flag, and she's not notable either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all the above delete votes. In addition, it doesn't meet WP:NPOL, the article claims he's a candidate for Congress but I see no sign that he is running a bona fide campaign (and he's not age-eligible in 2018). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repeatedly-created article, where the sources do not cover this individual in any depth whatsoever, there are brief mentions in unreliable/fringe sources only. Once this closes as a likely delete, I'd like to draw participants' attention to the White House press corps article where the article creator and a friend tag-team edit-warred to include Moates and his organization into the listing, which IMO is unwarranted to to both subject and organization's non-notability. ValarianB (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contrary to one of the arguments above, this subject does not have "significant coverage" of/about themselves in reliable resources. Citing blogs and someones Twitter feed do not make up for it. Seems to be self promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Request administrator not delete but put back in draft so the article can continue to be improved. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose moving to draftspace and I doubt an admin will do such. This article has been deleted ~~twice~~ once before. The reasons for this have been spelled out. He's not notable. It's not a matter of prose quality we're debating. Articles can't be rewritten so that their subjects are suddenly notable. If the sources are not out there (and it really doesn't look like it now) than we cannot have an article about him. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are significant other sources out there and the article can be improved. Allowing me the oppertunity to work on it would be the best course of action.Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesharrison2014: If the other sources can be found than by all means show them to us. But insofar there is no proof of notability. The draftspace cannot just be a repository of bios of some people who might be notable one day. If that were the case, I could cite a few documents/sources with my name on them and then retain a bio in draftspace indefinitely while I conduct a hypothetical fact-finding mission. You must show that these sources exist or we simply have to conclude that Moates is not notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and "don't move to draft space" Because of serious problem of coordinated promotion against Wikipedia policy. I highlighted this at the Organization's AfD and it is still relevant here.

The only pages edited by Jamesharrison2014 (talk · contribs) are four and exhibited behavior incompatible with Wikipedia policies. Some highlights:
He created Michael Moates, the director of the organization.
He created the organizations article Nation One News Foundation earlier.
He then edit-warred at White House press corps to insert the director.
He then asked for the page to be fully protected so as to save their preferred version.
His self-serving request was declined.
He reverted the Admin who declined the request.
He continued edit-warring at Talk:White House press corps after your declined request.
He made another request at RFPP to protect your own version.
His behavior suggest totally he is here to advertise and advocate for Michael Moates and his organization. But I told him he can change. He can become WP:HERE and help build an encyclopedia. But all these promotional pages will be deleted, we don't move spams fo draft. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, I had to file an anti-harassment report at the ANI board, as Jamesharrison2014 continues to revert a warning template on my talk page, for days on end. ValarianB (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with WP:SALT. This article is not showing that Moates has been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG — this is based entirely on primary source (e.g. his own contributor profiles on websites he's directly affiliated with), YouTube clips, glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of someone or something other than him, and sources which are entirely tangential to him because they entirely fail to even mention his name at all. This is not how you demonstrate a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources independent of the subject.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No main stream media sourcing and extremely limited in depth coverage. Billhpike (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also WP:SALT to prevent continued disruption. Billhpike (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:02, 19 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 merge to West Vincent Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. ansh 666 05:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weatherstone, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and reads like an advertisement. This is a housing development, not a town. Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to West Vincent Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Average large neighborhood of an average town. bd2412 T 03:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Sourcing here is not enough to support a standalone article. Of the 5 refs, #1 doesn't mention Weatherstone, #2 & #3 don't look independent, and #4 & #5 are just list entries (Google Books link not working for ref 4, try here): Noyster (talk), 10:04, 18 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. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Li Huang[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the record, while articles under this title have been deleted three times before, none of the prior deleted versions were about the same person that this version is about. (The only one to go through AfD was included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qiao Liang (Three Kingdoms) and pertained to a person who lived 1,800 years before this Li Huang.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose With apologies for causing so much trouble for all! ch (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the reason? Timmyshin (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to have been a procedural AfD nomination because the article creator originally requested speedy deletion per CSD G7 when the article was accidentally moved to the user space. However, that issue has already been resolved, so we should close this AfD.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 13:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- the article I mistakenly created in userspace was deleted, and thanks for that. But I did not request that the present article be deleted!ch (talk) 20:44, 13 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 merge to Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador. ansh 666 05:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. E. Tuma Memorial Trophy[edit]

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

NN amateur provincial sports award. Article is unsourced, and zero news links found for a complete failure of the GNG. [3]. All G-hits either to links of the Wiki article or casual mentions debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting the notability of the subject. Prod removed without comment. No obvious redirect target. Ravenswing 23:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE INTO Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador- If trophy is not deemed worthy of an article, the information should be incorporated into the governing body since it can at least be verified. Flibirigit (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador. It's already mentioned there, but there's a bit more relevant information in this article that can be added there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this is a trophy awarded to scoring leaders in minor leagues in a limited area. I agree that adding something about this trophy to Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador is a good idea, but its history and the list of winners is unnecessary and very trivial, IMO. PK T(alk) 14:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador. Whether we want to merge or delete it first IDC. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador. As the article is completely unsourced, there is nothing that can be merged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 20 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) 02:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JD Meeboer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. This appeared in a local newspaper, but hardly establishes notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. He was a contestant on a talent show, and didn't win. Hasn't had any notable recordings of his own, as far as I can tell. PK T(alk) 15:51, 13 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) 16:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Brundu[edit]

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

It is not clear that this author meets the requirement of WP:NAUTHOR. Her books (which include A Letter To Jimmy Wales, which is described as "A humble proposal to implement a valid Lombrosian criminal profiling method for citizens who devote themselves to unauthorized intellectual, writing and political propaganda activities, to prevent them accessing electronic means of writing, stocking reeds and beeswax so to compose by candlelight, attacking innocent feathered creatures to steal their quills, or seizing with impunity the medieval iron gall ink recipe") appear to have been published by minor or perhaps self-publishing outfits, and do not seem to have been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, works have unfortunately not been noted. Agricola44 (talk) 23:19, 14 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Block & Band[edit]

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

Advertorially toned article about a band, who have a potentially valid claims to passing WP:NMUSIC for touring, but no indication of reliable source coverage about them to support it. The references here are mainly to primary sources and the few things that might have been actual media coverage are unrecoverable dead links, making it impossible to verify whether they constituted substantive coverage of the band or just namechecks of its existence. So the sourcing simply isn't where it needs to be, and there's nothing stated in the body text that's compelling enough to grant them a presumption of notability in the absence of better sourcing -- and for an article that was created in 2011, the fact that neither the sourcing nor the substance have been touched since 2011 doesn't augur well for actual notability either. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of the band's record label. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- reads like an autobio, while sources to meet WP:SIGCOV are not there. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 12 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIQC Institute of Quality[edit]

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

Might be an advertisement. No coverage in my searches. Seems to fails WP:GNG. See User talk:PIQC Pakistan. Störm (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a Google search for independent coverage of the PIQC Institute of Quality and did not find anything that satisfies the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 02:38, 20 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 all. ansh 666 05:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MOHID Land[edit]

Previously redirected / deleted:

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

Article on an open source product written by one of the contributors to the project. All sources are either affiliated or primary (essentially namechecks in the output of projects that used the software). Much of the substantive content is unsourced. Significant history of promotional editing by the article's creator. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is much written like an advert and doesn't reflect notability on wikipedia. However, I did gain some knowledge from this article. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- mostly OR on a subject of no notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 16 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. Malinaccier (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black and Blue (EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 11:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is poorly constructed and should not exist on wikipedia. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 22:57, 12 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmones Idees Greek Ert 1 TV series 1989[edit]

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

The article has no third-party soucres on the TV Series, covering the subject in depth. Reliable sources are absent. References are to an imdb listing, the Greek channel program, or to sources irrelevent to the subject, just to create the impression of notabity (like ref #5 "awards 1973", that has nothing to do with the series). It seems that the article has been created just to promote Angelique Rockas, and most likeky is self-promotional. All the main contributors have COI with the subject. They are SPAs and puppets (Amfithea, Johanprof, Kotlenci), now globally blocked for inter-wiki abuse. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although personally I feel that this article can be further expanded but the it garnered no notability and has no significance to be on an encyclopedia, thus delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 12 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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I See Red (Uh Huh Her album)[edit]

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

Album which fails both the notability criteria for music albums and the general notability guideline. Nothing on searches either. Way too soon. -- Jack Frost (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this, but little else to establish notability. Appears to fail WP:NALBUM. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 12 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 arguments favoring deletion are policy/guideline based. IMO the sole argument for merge/redirect does not adequately respond to the points made in the pro-deletion comments. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart Clarinet Concerto in A, K. 622 Arranged for Two Clarinets by Tale Ognenovski (album)[edit]

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

Not a notable musical recording. References appear to be self-published or to things like iTunes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this would justify speedy delete as promotional. It's a straight advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and Redirect to Tale Ognenovski. It is appropriately covered there. That article is getting large, a spinout may be justified. Spinning out Tale_Ognenovski#Compositions_and_recordings would be more appropriate than spinnout out individual recompositions of mozart, for example. It is already tagged for cleanup. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 13 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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Sarthak[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian channel lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, the lead reads like an advertisement. Meatsgains (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have a lot of channel spam. Like books etc. they need to prove they are notable by coverage in reliable sources, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises - as it is the parent org. - Mar11 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The merger was covered by dozens of websites for some reason. There may be other sources. Subuey (talk) 03:30, 20 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never Forget EP[edit]

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

Does not pass one element of WP:NALBUM and may not exist, or just as an unofficial mixtape, not a released album. No media coverage and just a few lyrics sites (user-generated) to attest to it. JesseRafe (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A rare, almost bootleg-type, EP with no coverage or notable sales. Such a thing can be expected when the EP is more of less an unofficial release. But just because it possibly verified, that does mean it is anywhere near notable, according to the notability guidelines for albums.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 12 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aton Impulse Viking 2992[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no information about this car. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 12 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bidstrup[edit]

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

Notability in question. All references go to the subject's personal website. Searching the Internet shows that his writing has attracted attention, but the only truly independent publication seems to be an issue of Opposing Viewpoints in which one of his essays appeared. —Soap— 01:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no indication he has made any significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just restored two paragraphs about Bidstrup that are independent of his own biography. He is also a published author, and his career is interesting. — Objectivesea (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Objectivesea: But the story about cellphones was earlier deleted by an IP, likely the subject himself, with an edit summary suggesting it was inaccurate. I'd say that information is better left out of the article, and that at best its inclusion is questionable and shouldn't be used as the basis to claim notability. —Soap— 18:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reviewing the available sources, non-notable, but not that far off. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable in either of his fields. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 20 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 Userfy. I had originally closed this as a delete but on further consideration, I believe that userfying is an acceptable course if there is a chance of finding foreign language sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Lam Ho[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Lacking in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (This individual is newsworthy and there are dozens of articles about her work in major publications. Happy to change this back to a draft and add further sources.) --Cashannam (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have moved the page back into article space, where it was when nominated. Articles should never be moved while a deletion discussion is underway. I have move-protected it for the duration to insure it does not happen again. Moving it back to draft space is a possible outcome here, but unilaterally doing so in the middle of the discussion is just confusing, and edit warring over it is particualrly counter-productive. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: please I am suggesting per WP:IAR, you should just userfy it and delete this AfD (or close), since the user is newbie and I don't see any benefit of keeping this going for seven days and ending at the same thing. I have searched for the name, not much is found. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's incorrect. There's a multitude of articles concerning this individual and she is newsworthy. My suggestion is the article is moved back to a draft and I will work on expanding this stub with further sources. Cashannam (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't get my comment, I didn't say there are no sources at all or to delete the article; I am just asking him to simplify things and move it to your userspace now; so that you can improve it instead of waiting for seven days discussion which will also very likely end up with the same conclusion. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yes I misunderstood. However I'd prefer this was moved back to a draft instead allowing other users to contribute too. Cashannam (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage of her to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -It seems to me moving to draft will not make any difference. If something is not notable keeping it and continuous editing hardly makes any difference. WP:QMOUNT. There's no independent coverage about her whatsoever that is why the sources used are Instagram and LinkedIn. generally fails WP:GNG. Search shows the same thing. I hope the author will next write on something notable. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability based almost solely on her being the daughter of a famous man. But not many sources to make that so. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Emily Lam Ho. There are numerous sources about the subject in a Google search for her Chinese name. She has a good chance of passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I recommend moving to draftspace as article creator Cashannam (talk · contribs) has requested to give Cashannam the chance to incorporate those sources.
Her article notes, "She is the daughter of Hong Kong-based billionaire businessman Peter Lam and Taiwanese actress Tse Ling-ling, and since June 2016, the Director of Business Development at Sing Tao News Corporation, founded by her father-in-law Charles Ho." Another option is to merge this article to her parents' articles if it is determined that she is not independently notable.
Cunard (talk) 06:40, 19 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 Five Iron Frenzy discography#7.22 vinyl. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miniature Golf Courses of America[edit]

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

I couldn't find anything in terms of reliable sources, except this okay one [4] but that hardly satisfies the need for significant coverage. The other sources present, in the article, are from the band's website and a newspaper ad. I suppose it offers some info but their website doesn't go toward notability and the ad is mainly an image. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Five Iron Frenzy discography#7.22 vinyl, which covers it sufficiently. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Not independently notable and the target article covers the topic sufficiently. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 14 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) 16:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Wood and The Prick au Trianon[edit]

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

Apparently wholly non-notable video. The article is without any reference but IMDb (user-submitted/not reliable per WP:RS/IMDB). No hits on Gnews, three apparently spurious ones on Gbooks. This relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Lemaire, where it has been cited as a reason for keeping that page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giorgio69 (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:article created by sockpuppet user. The same article was deleted in the country of production of this "film" (actually it seems to be more of a live concert streaming) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Lilly_Wood_and_the_Prick_au_Trianon/Suppression — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgio69 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 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 title may be redirected at editorial discretion. Mz7 (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal Yungenz[edit]

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

Non-notable group with a single notable member. Not finding much in the way of actual coverage and the fact that their YT channel was so small is pretty telling. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect - Fails WP:GNG. I recall coming across a sentence-long mention of "Brutal Yungenz" when I wrote the Kodak Black article. This was little Dieuson's garage band when he was 12, and the appropriate one-sentence mention of it was added to the Kodak Black article. Totally non notable or worthy of a stand-alone article. Delete and redirect to Kodak Black. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, NMUSIC. I'm fine with a redirect to Kodak Black. South Nashua (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-this user has been creating many articles which are in the deletion process. This has been report at WP:ANI. NikolaiHo^☎️ 05:22, 15 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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen A. Hope[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or any other SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat notable, an emmy nominee and son of an oscar winner. Subuey (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Subuey: being a relative of a notable person wouldn't be sufficient, per WP:NOTINHERITED. With regard to the Oscar nominations, could you elaborate? There's nothing about this in the article, and it might help us decide whether this is sufficient to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can look it up, just look up "emmy", not "oscar", I made a mistake. Subuey (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, he's been nominated twice for Emmies: both nominations were for Outstanding Sound Editing for a Miniseries or a Special. Both nominations were for a group of twelve, rather than as a single artiste, so I'm still not convinced this is enough to pass GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a run-of-th-mill industry journeyman. His credits on IMDB are extensive, but as nominator points out nothing turns up when trying to locate independent, third party coverage that would indicate stand out notability. His Emmy nominations were as part of a team of a dozen people working in the Sound Department in various capacities. I agree with the above comment that that is not enough stand alone recognition. Had he actually won, perhaps it could be a stronger argument, but I still think it comes up short. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say I am concerned about the tendency to want articles on subjects who are notable in their own field, for example the Fandango biography, to be deleted. Subuey (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Whatever his father did is irrelevant. --Rusf10 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This falls under WP:CREATIVE, and I cannot see which inclusion criterion would be met, although he has numerous film credits spanning his career, according to IMDB. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could benefit from editing and some more content. He was clearly notable enough in his profession to warrant an obituary in Variety. 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm bothered by the notion that just because someone gets an obituary in a notable publication, they are suddenly notable even though they didn't merit an article here while alive. It's almost like a WP:1EVENT, becoming notable simply due to passing. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An obituary does not establish notability (regardless of the publication in which it appeared). Even the most unotable people still get obituaries.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand the references meet the standard set at GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Being a "member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Motion Picture Editors Guild and the American Federation of Musicians" is an insufficient claim of significance, and there's nothing better. Reads like a memorial page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 20 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. Article subject is found to lack the notability required in WP:NARTIST. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Stagg[edit]

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

The subject of this article about an erotic photographer, one among the approximately 50,000 active, professional, American photographers, probably lacks notability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage to to demonstrate her notability per WP:CREATIVE. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PHOTOGRAPHER & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good example judging a book by its cover and the failure to do WP:BEFORE. I did my research and found three decent mentions in news and books in five minutes. I see more out there. The article is a mess, but why not improve it rather than delete? Notability (GNG)is established by sourcing. 104.163.154.101 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out by what criteria should we judge an article except on the basis of its contents? The content is the only thing we can go by; there is no "cover" in this "book". As to the work necessary before submitting the article for deletion, please rest assured that it was done. Also, a discussion was started in the article's Talk Page; not surprisingly, it drew no participants. Moreover, the article has been tagged as lacking notability since 2009! Your opinion is fully respected but please do not make assumptions about other editors. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Gnome: check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers, Northamerica1000. As the one who opened this deletion proposal, I'm afraid I already commented too much. I'm taking my leave. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are a few sources. Fair warning: some of the sources listed below have soft nude images. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Huffpost
New Jersey Stage
Meet the Regulars: People of Brooklyn and the Places They Love. pp. pt60-64.
NY Press

Only the Huffington Post mention passes the criteria for reliable sources for a WP:BLP. An "Upper West Side website", a mention in a book about "Brooklyn regulars", and the listing in a mass exhibition are not eligible to support the notion of the subject's notability. But, of course, enough editors may believe that the article should nonetheless be kept. -The Gnome (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the sources presented here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- lacks reliable sources to back up notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cleaned up some of the references and added more as suggested by Northamerica1000 earlier on this page. The subject passes WP:GNG because of the numerous reliable sources WP:RS which contain significant coverage of her. Lacypaperclip (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the mention in Huffington post, I don't see any other reliable sources talking about her work. Sure, there are local self published websites. But hardly any reliable sources. Artists require critical acclaim but the subject doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria for WP:NARTIST.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Meet the Regulars" source is good, but most of the source list is non-authoritative cruft (gallery sites, broken links, etc.) Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 15 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) 16:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Rae[edit]

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

Non-notable, and the main band mentioned (Fightmilk)) was deleted for non-notability some time ago JetBlind (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The blogs mentioned are all minor - looks like a vanity page.Guardiancats (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources way below the level of being reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For not meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Coverage of her as an individual is very lacking, as mentioned above. She doesn't meet any of the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO: although she's been associated with notable bands, it is only in comparatively minor roles and she's not done anything noteworthy as a solo performer. Even if Fightmilk was notable, she still wouldn't be separately notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources for her to meet WP:GNG, and she pretty clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO.PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:30, 16 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. Sandstein 21:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo Logic[edit]

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

Band with releases not on notable labels. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage exists to establish notability. If the labels their albums were released on are not notable, that doesn't stop the band being notable. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 12 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. Sandstein 21:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Simoes Miranda[edit]

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

This article has no functional linked sources and does not seem like a noteworthy entry. This is my first time putting up an article for deletion, so let me know how I could have done this better Dheltha (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are indeed sources, they just are not inline. A quick search turns up some limited sources. Lack of inline sources in the current version of the article is not a reason for deletion.198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and lacks sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, while the article does list sources (I've no idea where the deletionists above were looking) they don't suggest they are sources that dwell on Miranda in any depth. Considering he is a youngish designer active internationally in the internet age, I would expect to find more online, if he was truly well known. He reproduces some coverage on his website, but this appears to be largely industry sales sites rather than established news sources. Sionk (talk) 11:23, 17 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KaXUL[edit]

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

insignificant project that died long ago Pmffl (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst I don't believe that just because a software product ceased being used long ago that's any rationale for deletion (see WordStar). However, neither the sources cited, nor searches on Google provide sufficient reason for me to believe this product meets WP:NSOFT. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:51, 15 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. Sandstein 21:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shohortoli[edit]

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

Unreliable and insignificant sources. Fails WP:GNG. The creator tried to create via AfC twice and got rejected. Then directly created this one. Mar11 (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails GNG and created by single-purpose account.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:35, 12 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) 16:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Windsor[edit]

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

Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. The assertion that Windsor starred in a groundbreaking feature is only sourced to a press release and nothing else indicates notability. Sourcing is comprised of mostly interviews and press releases. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Articles contains TooMuchInformation and may borderline violate the BLP. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much WP:BLP-violating content. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the accurate analyses of nom and Ritchie333. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:03, 16 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 merge to Sia (musician). Sandstein 20:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OnlySee[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM since it hasn't receieved any significant coverage in reliable sources. Should be redirected to Sia (musician). Emir Özen (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sia (musician). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. The album is not mentioned in a single major Australian newspaper article in the last 20 years based on a search of Factiva, and one article even refers to her second album as her debut album. Hard to argue an album with no mentions in the media and that only sold 1200 copies in notable enough for its own article. Kb.au (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sia (musician). Agree with Kb.au above. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 14 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) 16:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gladiuk[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a college hockey player who has done nothing to show notability. Probably has moved on from college, because otherwise he would be in his 6th season, the failure to mention such is even more a sign of non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. WP:NOTYET, anyway. PK T(alk) 14:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all of the above. Looks as though he has moved on from hockey after his college career. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 16:42, 16 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) 16:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's A Honey[edit]

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

Notability. Is #83 on the Scottish chats enough to confer it? If it is, the bar is too low to limbo under. TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it passes both the WP:GNG and WP:NSONG.L3X1 (distænt write) 14:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also charted at Number 2 on both the Official UK Vinyl and Official UK Sales charts in the UK, single has been streamed over 4 million times since release. EL Foz87 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:42, 12 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) 16:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voiture trolley[edit]

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

Many source searches are providing no significant coverage; does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a distinction without a difference from the trolleys used in dim-sum restaurants or airline service trolleys. Rhadow (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as something someone made up one day. There are no meaningful GHits and no book hits at all that I see. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most search results seem to be reprints of this article. I thought there might have been articles on hostess trolley or dessert trolley, both of which are far more common phrases, but neither of those seems to be notable either. I don't see any useful redirect candidates, since the name is not mentioned elsewhere (unsurprisingly if it's not a phrase used outside of this article). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 13 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) 16:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Rice[edit]

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

Notability. References are all concerning the business she founded or run of the mill. TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable if not for foundin SoulCycle but for becoming head of WeWork. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable because she founded Soulcycle, hence the relevant company info. It may need more biographical info about her education/personal life, but should not be deleted. User:Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (distænt write) Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The rationale for nominating for deletion makes no sense. "References are all concerning the business": Yes, that's the point. It's a more than $100 million/year business that is one of the most prominent firms that pushed forward the spinning trend in fitness. She is also the Chief Brand Officer of one of the largest co-working concerns in the US, WeWork. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fuzheado. Founder of major business, clearly notable. Gamaliel (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fuzheado. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In-depth coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources gives this article a pass of WP:GNG, and the fact that there is coverage both about SoulCycle and WeWork saves it from WP:BIO1E. There is no requirement, nor should there be, that coverage be about something other than what the subject is primarily known for. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple obviously notable roles and the coverage in reliable sources that comes with that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of a notable company, SoulCycle, which ought to have an article. Enough in reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of notable company. Needs expansion, yes, but not deletion. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:17, 19 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) 16:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IIC Technologies Limited[edit]

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

Nearly unsourced (sourced to company registrar). BEFORE doesn't yield enough sources for WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH - few google news and books hits, and they do not cover the company at length. Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Note - was rejected at AfC twice. I don't think this is a WP:G11 fail (as it is not unambiguously promotional) - but a sourcing fail, and no realistic chance at notability.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The article reads like a company press release. FITINDIA 14:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Article went through the AFC process and was repeatedly declined. Editor then ignored all the comments and decided to publish anyway. Editor also has an undisclosed WP:COI. David.moreno72 07:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially just a minor variation of this Draft:IIC Technologies which has failed AfC multiple times for lack of notability and promotional concerns. Even if promo is addressed, notability and COI will remain as reasons for deletion._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - clearly intended to be promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:48, 14 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. Sandstein 20:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyne Jobe Villines[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual with only local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was curious why there was a complete mismatch between the article and the descriptions of it above. Then I saw that Megalibrarygirl has been at work. Plenty of references, not exclusively local (and it wouldn't matter even if they were). Hey ho, we'll have to look for something else to delete. Thincat (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now well referenced.--Ipigott (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG. It was likely she would be notable since she was an inductee into the Iowa Women's Hall of Fame. Pinging John Pack Lambert to take another look now that there are plenty of references from reliable sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reping Johnpacklambert since I messed it up above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 16 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Millner[edit]

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

Non-notable person. He was awarded the military cross, but there are 48,000 such recipients and there is no assertion of what his military achievement was. Apart from that he was a businessman with no further elaboration given ADS54 talk 11:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Notability is not inherited.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to showing notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability; does not appear to be sufficient coverage for WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SOLDIER, rank of colonel and award of the Military Cross is insufficient notability for a military figure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Philanthropist who is known widely in Rugby Union, business and military circles. Instead of deleting three generations of Millner the next generation should be added given their ongoing relevance and notability. Castlemate (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to suggest notability here. Having notable family members does not mean that non-notable family members inherit notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:58, 16 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. Sandstein 19:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Horner Fletcher[edit]

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

Non notable accountant, who was a mayor of the local council. He is alleged to be a pioneer of rugby, but the only elaboration of this is that he organised a high school match when he was a schoolboy ADS54 talk 11:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Does appear to have been prominent in the local community, but I can't see the evidence for wider notability. Frickeg (talk) 11:21, 15 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. Sandstein 19:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rigby[edit]

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

Non notable businessman who was on a school board and some professional orgs' committees ADS54 talk 11:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think something has to be done about the proliferation of articles on non-notable people who attended Newington College. Being on a school board is almost never a sign of notability, and his role as a businessman was not either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here that would establish notability. There are things that at a great stretch might (e.g. the Civic Reform Association) if they were backed up with sufficient coverage in reliable sources, but they are not. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many areas that need to be investigated such as Kell & Rigby, Order of Australia Assocition and Civic Reform. Instead of deleting maybe editors coul improve. Castlemate (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you did this yourself, you wouldn't have so many articles nominated for deletion, rather than expecting people to go out of their way to save articles on possibly borderline-notable people because you can't be bothered. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop this persanal abuse. Castlemate (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any evidence of notability. As TDW says some of this stuff suggests possible notability, but I've not been able to find the sources to support it. Frickeg (talk) 11:17, 15 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davidson (medical practitioner)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable doctor whose claim to fame is being the team doctor for a high school sports team and an unsourced claim that he compiled the most detailed records of schoolboy sports injuries ADS54 talk 11:26, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete totally non-notable school specific medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability here whatsoever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability. Frickeg (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article containing unsourced statement I not valid reason for deletion and neither empty "not notable" is. He passes WP:ANYBIO #3; as the recipient of significant national honor Medal of the Order of Australia which is given to only select individuals with true academic/social achievement. In addition he passess WP:NACADEMIC #2 for Salvation Army Cross of the Order of Distinguished Auxiliary Service another national honor. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been established multiple times in the past that the Medal of the Order of Australia, while a worthy award, is in no sense sufficient for ANYBIO. It is the lowest honour in the Order of Australia and is routinely given to non-notable people. I am less knowledgeable about the Salvation Army award, but it very clearly cannot qualify for NACADEMIC, which specifies an academic award. Frickeg (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where? When? and at what level of consensus was it established? –Ammarpad (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any media coverage of Dr. Davidson's thirty year long effort to catalog schoolboy injuries, or any info archived in medical journals, despite this newsletter article mentioning it.[[5]] There's also very limited coverage of the Medal of the Order of Australia, and certainly nothing that would support keeping the article on the basis of just that award. Short of this necessary supporting coverage, the article fails WP:GNG.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cortis Jones[edit]

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

Deputy headmaster at a high school. No specific achievements disclosed nor likely ADS54 talk 11:20, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non-notable schoolteacher from (presumably) the same author's high school. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please in your continued attack on the author do not assume anything about them as I assume nothing of you. I'm told elsewhere that an MBE counts for nothing (must be a KBE or GBE) but find me another schoolmaster with such an award for his service to a school and to the GPS. Castlemate (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

School teacher who got an award for service to his school and to the GPS, even a big award, is not even a claim of notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability made; most of what I can find is mirror sites. Also, here are 40 other schoolteachers who received the MBE (and that's probably not a comprehensive list). Frickeg (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that link is to Warren Pearson AM not schoolteachers with MBEs but I would be interested to know who the 40 are that you found. Castlemate (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I linked to them? Frickeg (talk) 21:29, 15 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. Sandstein 19:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Colwell[edit]

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

Non-notable doctor. He was the head of a unit in the army and also in a hospital and therefore a mid-level manager, but no notable achievements or research disclosed. He was the state-level head of a very narrow professional organisation. While he was successful, he is not notable and the refs are all about other people or just a list of uni graduates etc ADS54 talk 11:14, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Director of Radiological Services at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, which at the time was the leading hospital in NSW. Fellow and President of a newly emerging Professional College. Castlemate (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here establishes notability. I wondered if the professional association might imply some notability, but our article on them establishes that apparently none of his peers in that role have articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Clearly time to create some bios in this enormously important post-war speciality. Read the history of the College to understand his notability. Castlemate (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us and cite those sources, since they're apparently not available online. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Haven't been able to find much here - like The Drover's Wife I am curious about the College of Radiologists but without sources it doesn't mean much. Frickeg (talk) 11:10, 15 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. Sandstein 19:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

County Line, Georgia[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage. While there is a historical school, there's not a clear community of this name. The zip code is for another community and there's no clear definition of where this community is supposed to be (despite an earlier claim that a source gave one). Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that County Line was ever a recognized populated place. The source is a mirror of USGS GNIS (343627), which says this is only the historic location of a school based on government records. Nothing found in an independent search. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Even the single source does not claim this is an actual place, but rather an historical school (which the GNIS agrees with). There is a County Line Place in Georgia (see here), which currently does not have an article, but that is in a different county. There is also a County Line Heights, again in a different county (see here). Most importantly, there is a populated place in Meriwether County, Georgia with this name, which would pass WP:GEOLAND as such. I think the article needs to be re-written to show that populated place. If that's the decision of this discussion, ping me and I'll take care of it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Use the map, zoom in on the satellite view, you'll see nothing much there. In my view it is a misinterpretation of what GNIS is. Rhadow (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete yet another placename database hallucination: things on "County Line Road" might be named "County Line X", but there's clearly no there there. Mangoe (talk) 18:35, 12 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. Sandstein 19:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vtiger Customer Relationship Management[edit]

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

Deleted in January due to lack of notability, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vtiger_CRM. No recent coverage that would require reassessment, fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Promotional. Rentier (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:G4. Article was previously created and deleted under a different name, current article does not appear to include any information post-dating that AfD that would indicate a change in notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Fails WP:GNG and this software fails WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search finds a lot of third party references, reviews and significant coverage in the news. The current article needs to be improved and rather than deleting sufficient time may be given to the community to improve the article. Hagennos (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-notable entrant in crowded field. Nothing changed since last time. HighKing, SwisterTwister, K.e.coffman, Lourdes already observed. Rhadow (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails for the same reasons as the last article was deleted. No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Rusf10 (talk) 19:37, 12 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. Withdrawing as WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Search for the Golden Dolphin[edit]

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

All I can find is minor blurbs:[6][7][8][9], and there's no suggestion it has won awards that would imply the existence of more coverage offline as WP:NVG says. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sources have been added, however I'm not sure of how good quality they are. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:36, 12 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) 16:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Safety[edit]

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

My initial impression was that the subject of the article suffers from lack of notability. The coverage that I did find suspiciously look like vanity press. (See WP:RS on this.) There is not a single reliable source that has tested its antimalware capabilities. (In addition to Google Search, I looked av-test.org directly.)

But more suspiciously, this looks like a scam. I couldn't find a shred of evidence that suggests this is truly a Trend Micro product, which already has another mobile security solution called Trend Micro Mobile Security. It is highly suspicious for a product claiming to be from Trend Micro to set up its official website on a free Wordpress.com blog: See revision 740604311. Later, a TrendMicroDrSafety.com is added, so I did more checks: The digital certificate for trendmicro.com is an Extended Validation Certificate (proves the legal entity controlling the website) issued by AffirmTrust, to Trend Micro, Irving, Texas, United States. (AffirmTrust itself is a subsidiary of Trend Micro.) The digital certificate for LookupTrendMicroDrSafety.com is a plain Let's Encrypt certificate that anyone can acquire. Also, comparing their whois data: TrendMicro.com WHOIS vs. TrendMicroSafety.com WHOIS.

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Notability (software). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, with only 1 low-quality, possibly-independent reference. Refs with download links are typically not considered independent, and in any case, one review is not sufficient to establish notability, even if independent. A search turned up no additional significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I don't think the app is a scam. I checked google play and I found the app there as well as apple and a Trend Micro press release. The app itself is genuine. However, I agree with Codename Lisa that the links on the page have definitely been changed to point to unreliable websites instead of the actual app website. This is one of the many apps released by companies and end up being forgotten because very few people use it. There are hardly any reviews and it seem people only used it because they made a deal with ASUS to preinstall it on a ZenFone.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:26, 17 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. Sandstein 19:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shantilal Muttha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Rubbish AFD close in prev. case.Fails GNG by quite a margin.All are trivial name-mentions in some dailies.Ref 1, 2 and 4 (The Better India) are not RS.I have doubts as to whether Ref-5 is paid-promo-spam. Winged Blades^Godric 09:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not a notable person as many of the sources are all just mentioning the name, and I agree with the nominator. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:10, 12 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. Sandstein 19:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Realist Left[edit]

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

In its current form, this is a manifesto, not a Wikipedia article, and seems like the group has a goal of creating a Wikipedia entry (see here). An article on a group can't rely on primary sources or original research, it has to draw from third-party sources that describe the movement. This article doesn't have any of those, and a search on Google shows that none exist. I'm sorry to say, but at the moment, this group does not seem to be notable enough (meaning it is not written about in enough reliable, third-party sources) for inclusion here. Owlsmcgee (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Truly a political manifesto by a group that can barely be verified, let alone covered by secondary sources. If possible, I would speedily delete this page as propaganda and WP:OR at its worst.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "realist left" yields 2,840 results (is that "none"?), including the following third-party sources:

So why the hurry? Got a pony in this race? Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a pony in this race. Just for reference, since you have asked twice "why the hurry," I'll tell you: I'm a page reviewer, so I have a tool that loads pages that are new, and part of the task is to assess whether it fits criteria for notability, and to leave suggestions on how to improve it. If you wanted to take more time to create this article with improved sourcing, the place to do it is your sandbox, and then you could move it to a proper article once it was in shape. I moved quickly because that's what we're supposed to do. We try to keep Wikipedia reliable, rather than leaving articles around, waiting for them to become reliable. So, no, this is nothing personal, I have no interest in or knowledge about this topic whatsoever, I just happened across the page as part of my nightly round of page patrolling, and saw it lacked reliable references. I then Googled the term and found that no reliable third party references existed - including those that you posted above, which are not reliable. You can check out this link to see what Wikipedia considers reliable. Anyway, you've been casting aspersions on me, so I'm not going to engage further. I just thought I'd explain how we got here in the hopes that it gives you some context for why the article was flagged, rather than assuming I had some personal vendetta against you. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The barrage of accusations for wanting to contribute with Wikipedia came against me first. I am just surprised — and quite honestly flabbergasted — by the level of aggressiveness. I did put a notice up saying it was under construction. Doesn't it say that "the creator asks that for a short time this page not be edited unnecessarily, or nominated for deletion during this early stage of development"? How about allowing people to work on the content before jumping the gun so hastily?

I then Googled the term and found that no reliable third party references existed - including those that you posted above, which are not reliable.

EURACTIV is not a "reliable source"? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The EURACTIV story you linked to doesn't contain enough information on the term "realist left" to justify an article, no. Please stop being so defensive. If you want more time to work on this article, I have already outlined how to do that: move it to your sandbox, develop it with your sources, and then move it into an article when you think it is ready. However, the article, as it stands now, is not suitable for Wikipedia and is not supported by the references you are using. As I said, at the moment, I can't see any that exist, which is why I flagged it for deletion despite the under construction banner. The article is not being built the way a Wikipedia article needs to be, lacks sources, and cited sources that may be influential to the movement, but do not show that the movement is notable. If you know of any reliable, third-party sources that have described the movement in detail, you are more than welcome to share them to support your claim that the article should exist. I'm afraid the ones you provided above aren't really passing muster. For notability, you will need more than an uncredited quotation in a EURACTIV article (this is what Wikipedia would define as a "trivial mention," see the policy on Notability.) You would need a few articles, from reliable sources, written about the movement to establish notability (this is not a judgement on the movement, it's an assessment of what is being written about it). If you are sincerely interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I encourage you to look into these policies, start this article anew in a sandbox, and perhaps work on some other articles in the meantime. As you say, there's no rush. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing this all wrong. How about challenging contributors to develop their content up to Wikipedia standard, and if the challenges remain unanswered, then — and only then! — queuing them for deletion? What you're doing is deletionism, pure and simple. And you wonder why I'm being defensive (while being accused of every sort of misdemeanour without even being asked about the content!)… — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you honestly expect to fool anyone with those "third-party sources"? How peculiar: you listed sources about the French Left, alt-left, and blogs advocating for a Wikipedia entry!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you listed sources about the French Left, alt-left

The Realist Left is in the Alternative Left, and, from Fourier to Proudhon to Marx to Foucault, much of the Left's history originated in France — what's so "peculiar" about that?? And what am I to "fool" about?? Why do you presume ill intent? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a mess and needs a WP:TNT. The definition would be nice, but it is not referenced. The topic may be notable, but there is nothing verifiable that could be salvaged from this mess. Looking at the comment above, it is clear that this needs to be written from scratch by someone who can use academic, not blog, sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, basically propaganda. Natureium (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page is currently a redirect to the same page in draft space. This is deceptive and confusing to readers, who may click on a link and find an article without noticing the change of namespace. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the barrage of accusations continues… I tried to address the criticism by moving it to Draft, and now am accused of being "deceptive". One can't really satisfy the Wikipedia deletion mob, can we? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 17:23, 14 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. Sandstein 19:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Igniyte[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable. The coverage is mostly quotes or promotion from Wadsworth or a sentence or two. Appears to be PROMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- actually speedy delete G11. Hopeless promotinal and not rescuable, and furthermore, not notable enough to be worth rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 15 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. Closing early and invoking the snowball clause. Consensus has emerged in favor of keeping the article for now and revisiting the article in a few months to see whether the event has received lasting coverage. Malinaccier (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 New York City attempted bombing[edit]

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

Not relevant to the Encyclopedia Have a Merry Christmas ---- ChocolateRabbit 05:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETION RATIONALE - Before this is speedily closed for lack of rationale, this incident, with extremely minor injuries (headaches, etc.) and little damage, shows no signs of WP:LASTING significance. Editors will argue the initial boom of news reports is notable but WP:EVENTCRIT states: "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting". Reiterating the same story fails these necessities and displays what what Wikipedia is not. Any possible chance of notability can only be found if the subject is significant months from now in in-depth analysis. For now, however, there is nothing notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, this was just a bad nomination and I am not even going to entertain it. Per WP:RAPID which seems to be a popular response. Revisit this in a few months I suppose.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - If a religiously inspired^[1] ISIS terror attack in NYC is not notable enough for Wikipedia, then what is? XavierItzm (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ TOM WINTER; JONATHAN DIENST; TRACY CONNOR. "NYC blast suspect Akayed Ullah aimed to avenge Muslim deaths, source says". NBC News. Retrieved 11 December 2017. did it in the name of ISIS to avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world, law enforcement officials said.

Delete - NOT OK (Nighthawk NZ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighthawknz (talk • contribs) 05:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant International coverage in Reliable Sources in across all major News outlets worldwide clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:RAPID the only question arguably is whether it meet WP:LASTING in the long term ,that is tough to say at this point .But as of now it is clearly keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the minor terrorist incidents in New York City have articles, some don't. Timmyshin (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- not this again. A bomb went off in NYC. Significantly notable. If you think this won't have lasting political and security significance in the U.S. and New York specifically, you are kidding yourself. Do the admins a favor and withdraw your nomination. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- meh, nobody died, only the suspect was significantly injured. First world problems and a news item of uncertain encyclopedic significance. I suspect we won't see lasting impact from this. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 08:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 08:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:RAPID. Considering - White House claims Trump's immigration plans could have prevented NYC attack, CNN (family visas policy suggestions by Trump) - this quite possibly might have a LASTING effect if indeed US immigration policy is modified. Since SIGCOV is met, and LASTING is the sole notability concern, RAPID applies - it is too soon to assess future coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:RAPID there is a suspect in custody, it looks like there will be a trial, there is discussion of immigration policy. Deaths do not make an article notable, there are a lot of murders that don't satisfy notability. This is notable for the same reasons the Halloween attack was - likely to have an effect on policy, legal proceedings, etc. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep Passes WP:NCRIME due to WP:INDEPTH coverage in national and international press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see 2017 New York City truck attack. This is part of a long history of terror attacks in NYC. The 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt had zero deaths, but is clearly notable. -- Callinus (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reasoning as .E.M.Gregory. PvOberstein (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first attempted suicide attack in NYC since 9/11 is definitely of lasting significance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only bombwise. That one actually killed people, this one didn't. Neither have articles. Nor this one or this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Documents the continuing danger of Islamic terrorism to the US. Not a minor incident. Intent was to cause many deaths. Lyttle-Wight (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, plenty of RS. The NOTNEWS concerns can be addressed through editing as needed. South Nashua (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was an international Islamist terrorist attack in the busiest and most powerful city in the Western hemisphere. It caused severe disruption to many thousands of people and received a great deal of mainstream media coverage. The only reason that no-one was killed is that the bomb didn't detonate properly. It has also prompted government plans to stop extended-family chain migration, the method by which the suspect gained legal residence in the US. Jim Michael (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rare attack in New York, suicide bombings or attempted suicide bombings are not very common in the US, so therefore it has encyclopedic value.JBergsma1 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy 'Keep, obviously. Appreciate apparent withdrawal of this nom so I am not clear why it is open. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .... and trout the nominator. No reason given to delete. I misunderstood-, this was not withdrawn; the strikeout at top was from an early delete who changed their !vote. Coretheapple (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More then enough sources included for this article to pass WP:NOTNEWS. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 22:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:RAPID; there's no chance of this being deleted while it is a breaking news story. It will be impossible to demonstrate that there will not be lasting coverage for at least two weeks. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This violates "not news". Wikipedia is not meant to be a news paper, and we do not need articles on every minor incident when someone tries to bomb something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An attempted bombing at New York City's busiest Subway station is notable, especially when considering the potential foreign policy and immigration policy implications. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 03:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I figured we would have to have this discussion. In so, I imagine that To say that this is notable gives too much credit to the would be attacker. Considering the lasting effects of this have been minimal in my opinion, and that Notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), I'm going with delete. I know it won't be, though, because we as editors will always favor something with clear sources (and the internet age generally grants that to us). So, maybe we delete this in a year or two, after a second review. I don't really know. Wikipedia's guidelines really need to be updated with topics similar to this one.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have gave this one a month at least before a deletion discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider snow/speedy close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revisit in two months time per WP:RAPID nomination. Störm (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable. - Bagel7^T's 10:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes general notability guideline because it has coverage and could result in US policy change. It is indeed relevant to the Encyclopedia Have a Merry Christmas. epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no violations of WP policy here. יבריב (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - This one does not need to go on for 7 days. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Likely going to receive more coverage in coming days. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (& Your Counterargument Doesn't Make Any Sense) I don't see what the problem is. This is a widespread, terrorist attempted attack in the heart of Manhattan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorSpeed (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The explosion barely reached the people it annoyed. That's not widespread. And nowhere near the heart. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's definitely not the Crossroads of the World by any means, but sure, let's go with Central Park as the heart...

On a serious note, that is a pretty weak counterargument, even if it was sarcastic. Times Square is the true heart of Manhattan based on the hundreds of thousands of commuters and tourists that travel through it every day. Central Park is only the geographical "heart" and it really isn't that far away, nor is it as busy as Times Square, Grand Central, or Penn Station. epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern civic anatomy isn't my strong suit, I'll admit. But I know small numbers, and three people with ringing in their ears is indeed small, next to the dozens of thousands of commuter and tourist ears Tinnitus#Epidemiology suggests would've rung in that tunnel with or without a would-be bomber, and continue to ring as usual today. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the tinnitus thing, I agree. More people get ear damage by standing on the 14th Street–Union Square subway platform every day. But this is still somewhat notable, similar to unsuccessful attacks like the April 2015 New York City pressure cooker bomb plot or New York City landmark bomb plot. It just doesn't have to be that detailed of an article. epicgenius (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a no-brainer. Deep, diverse worldwide coverage, notable per WP:COVERAGE. The duration criterion is too soon to judge, but likely to be long-lasting, as the trial of the suspect will certainly be newsworthy. -Zanhe (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am not entirely convinced that this will have a lasting impact, but so far it seems to have renewed American fears of Islamic terrorist attacks on their soil. Whether any political developments come out of this will likely determine its notability. Dimadick (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID, media coverage --Jeremyb (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Things explode every day, people fail to kill people and Americans are abuzz about jihad. This was big while it was unfolding, but now that it's not, there's not much worth remembering. It's like a less-impactful Antigo prom shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I want to encourage people to pray for Akayed Ullah. Having a Wikipedia entry to reference as background information about him and the New York bombing attempt is invaluable as a resource. Without the Wikipedia entry it's very hard to find reliable material through which to inform people about this person who they can be praying for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.247.249 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 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) 16:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Heron[edit]

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

WP:BLP, minimally sourced to two pieces of purely local coverage in the local community weekly, of the mayor of a suburban city which is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors per WP:NPOL. Local coverage is simply expected to exist for any mayor anywhere, so one or two pieces of that is not enough to make a mayor notable under WP:GNG -- to warrant an encyclopedia article, she needs to show evidence of wider coverage extending significantly beyond just her own city. Mayors need to be significantly more notable than the norm to qualify for Wikipedia articles, not just to be minimally sourceable as existing. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near enough sources to show notability for a suburban mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google News search shows a bunch of articles in her hometown paper, the St. Albert Gazette, and a couple of mentions in the Edmonton Journal (see here. The pobulation of St. Albert, Alberta is about 65,000, where there is an expectation of more than hometown coverage of an elected official. --Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 13 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. Sandstein 19:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Scillia[edit]

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

obvious WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, created to promote. Rusf10 (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin with a slightly informative twist. Especially when that includes making assertions like Lodi being "prodominantly Italian-American", which is suspect. Probably no more than 70% of the population was non-Hispanic whites in 2000. I highly doubt Italians were over 50% of the population.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historically Lodi has been home to many Italian-americans. I have no idea whether it was ever a majority, but I'm sure it isn't now. Regardless, you are right its unsourced content.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:55, 13 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) 16:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Eklund[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, poorly sourced and not notable. Rusf10 (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The company has been acquired and the assertions in the article do not agree with this account [10].Rhadow (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one article is way below the level needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 13 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. Sandstein 19:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Alvarez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable DJ/ WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Was previously deleted. Rusf10 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin, despite some people trying to use it as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient media coverage, beyond [[11]], which is a brief mention. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:04, 19 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) 16:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Hesse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable lecturer/writer. Page was apparently already deleted in 2015 for this reason.-- Bistropha (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing has changed since this article was last deleted two years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a cleric below the episcopal level with no other indicators of notability. Being on the fringe doesn't make one notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 19 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) 16:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Srinidhi Varadarajan[edit]

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

fails WP:ACADEMIC, has been tagged as having notability problems for four years with no additional sources to support notability added. Rusf10 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cleaned this up for the debate so that at least it describes his current status rather than being out of date, but that doesn't mean I think the article should be kept. He was once a promising academic but WP:TOOSOON for academic notability; now he seems to have left academia to become a startup founder and executive, but is again WP:TOOSOON for notability that way. More specifically, the citation counts for his academic work are too low (in a high-citation discipline) for WP:PROF#C1, the MIT Review piece from that time is too slight by itself for WP:GNG notability, and I can't find subsequent in-depth independent sourcing to support notability for his startup work. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. notable as neither WP:PROF nor as a businessman. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see the coverage to meet WP:GNG or any accomplishments that meet any other notability standards.Sandals1 (talk) 04:24, 19 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) 16:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starfest[edit]

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

Written like an ad, lacks reliable sourcing Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lame rationale, but the topic fails GNG. I have added a more specific source search below, as there is a Starfest in Dallas TX which may be notable, but isn't about Trekkies. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:16, 14 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Madia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to be a promotional vanity article. Subject fails WP:NPOL as a failed candidate and beyond politics, fails WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet GNG. Reads like a press release. His military service does not rise to a level of notability; he ran for public office and lost. Just nothing notable enough. Trivial and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; very much a press release.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a losing candidate for Congress with no other notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last discussion was based on a flawed understanding of the guidelines of notability for politicians. Candidates for political office are not counted as "local politicians". Instead they need to pass very high muster of non-routine coverage. That is just not reached in Madia's case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in elections, but this doesn't make any proper claim that he's notable for anything else — the few sources here that exist outside the context of his election campaign itself comprise two namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things and one piece in which he's the bylined author rather than the subject. This is not how you demonstrate or source a person as notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 14 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. Sandstein 17:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut Like A Diamond[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable album; most of the artists listed have no Wikipedia articles, and neither is the album's composer. No coverage in reliable sources could be found, and there is no indication that the album charted on any major Indian chart. Online hits appear to be mostly false positives. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Any article on a recording by an unnotable musical artist without an article themselves can be speedily deleted. Or does the one member with an article create an exception?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:45, 12 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. Sandstein 17:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firaydoun Javaheri[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many similar articles have already been deleted of members of the UHJ. Membership does not establish notability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed. Smkolins (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The top leaders of a major world faith, as the members of the UJH are, clearly are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The members makes collective decisions by majority vote on a council, and they don't serve as clergy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is defined as the number of third-party reliable sources. Just being a leader without any particular third party sources doesn't make one notable, and that's the case here. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:32, 14 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. Numerically it's a split, but the core argument for deletion is compelling and uncontested: the content is entirely based on self-published websites, which are basically the textbook definition of what WP:RS are not. Because WP:V as a core policy cannot be superseded by consensus, the opinions to keep must be discounted. While I appreciate arguments such as RoySmith's that we should nonetheless keep this useful or interesting content per WP:IAR, I do not think that these arguments hold up under scrutiny. IAR asks us to ignore rules that prevent us from improving Wikipedia, but in the light of the core policy of verifiability, it is the removal rather than the addition of unverifiable material that improves Wikipedia. Sandstein 17:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog numbering systems for single records[edit]

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

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

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

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

The purpose and scope of this article seem very unclear. It purports to "present the numbering systems used by various record companies for single records", but there are/have been dozens (hundreds?) of record labels that have released singles and it seems unclear what purpose an article trying to describe every label's catalog numbering system, just for one type of release (vinyl singles), serves in an encyclopedia. Notes on a particular record label's catalog numbering system would, I think, best go in the article about that record label. There doesn't seem to be much use in trying to compile all record labels' catalog systems into a single list. Nearly every reference in this article is to a single website, http://www.78discography.com/, which appears to be a personal website. Other refs point to http://www.45cat.com/ which I think is a wiki. The article was created and mainly built up by User:BRG who, according to their user page, stepped away from WP because they felt the concepts of "reliable sources" and "notability" were detrimental, and didn't see why personal web pages weren't reliable as sources. I think that probably explains why this article exists. IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources, no real clear indication of importance. The article documents numbering systems for record labels, but...so what? What's the significance of that? Why would such a thing need documentation on an encyclopedia? The article doesn't cover it, and I can't think of anything personally. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it's an excellent resource and yes, this is a topic worth entering an encyclopedia for its historical significance (music studies rely on this kind of evidence pretty often; it is also the case with recordings of spoken word). Better references are definitely needed, but this shouldn't be deleted. – Impy4ever (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument lacks any sort hard proof or examples. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSNOTABLE are not valid keep rationales, especially coupled with the fact that both sources used in the article are not reliable/usable sources, and you haven't presented any alternative reliable sources to be used.
I can maybe understand someone arguing that it'd be worth a sentence or two at an individual record label's article about the fact that the numbering systems existed, but there is no actual purpose of actually listing out all these numbering systems in one location like this. These numbers have no significance to the general reader. We don't list them at their respective Wikipedia articles. You wouldn't use them to locate music - you don't type them in at iTunes or expect to see signs on retail shelves at Best Buy. There's literally no value in knowing these numbers. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems an excellent resource and the fact that the nominator cannot see a reason why it should exist is annulled by the fact that I have just come across it linked in a DYK hook here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's a good resource" isn't a compelling argument. The DYK "hook" is a red herring: the article is merely linked to provide some definition of "catalog number" (which the article doesn't even do...it presents no description or definition of what catalog numbers are or what purpose they serve), it's not the subject of the DYK. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DYK hooks have no bearing on article notability, or whether not articles are kept or deleted. And even if they did, that DYK hook's existence does not hinge on this article existence. Completely irrelevant !vote rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no proper deletion reason given that couldn't be addressed by improving the article rather than deleting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that's true. As explained above, the scope of the article is fundamentally flawed in ways that don't seem fixable. Why an article compiling descriptions of various record labels' catalog systems, rather than describing each label's catalog system separately within the individual articles about those labels? The systems have nothing to do with one another. It's not like all these record labels got together and planned some type of complementary numbering system, so presenting them all in one article seems to serve no purpose. And why just singles? No indication is given that the numbering systems for singles are distinct from the numbering systems used for other types of records (LPs, EPs), so the scope of the article seems arbitrary. There have been so many record labels that have released singles that such an article can hardly hope to ever approach being comprehensive, so the goal of the article is unclear. Plus, as pointed out, the article relies almost entirely on a single personal website as its source. That can't be fixed. There could/should probably be an article describing what record catalog systems are, how they developed, and how they are used by the major companies in the major markets (along the lines of the articles on International Standard Book Numbers and library catalogs), but such an article would need to be built from scratch; neither the title, text, nor sources from this article would be useful in developing it. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure you don't, but the concept is well-established and most of your nomination relates to a lack of quality or reliable sources. Just arbitrarily deleting the article because it's not perfect yet seems a little premature. I note you're badgering "keep" voters so I'm now unwatching, my point remains unchanged. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - But "lack of reliable sources" is a perfectly valid argument for deletion. Valid and still not discredited. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excellent, well-sourced, encyclopedic treatment. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out in the nomination, nearly the entire article relies a single personal website as its source. Would you mind explaining how you interpret that as being "well-sourced"? --IllaZilla (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe you gave this a thorough look. Every single source listed traces back to 2 websites. One is "45cat", which is literally listed as unreliable at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. The other is "78discography", which not literally listed at the music source site, is obviously a self-published database by a random person, and is nothing other than a giant database entry. Which is great, because that's the type of place that should be hosting this sort of information, not Wikipedia. It doesn't establish notability here in the slightest. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This needs work, yes, but AfD is not for cleanup. This is an encyclopedic subject, and while it may need to be moved to List of catalog numbering systems for single records to better reflect its content, this is a notable topic. The main thrust of the delete arguments seems to be "These numbers have no significance to the general reader." - that is not a reason to delete anything, or else we'd have to axe about two-thirds of the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for hyperbole, and please don't misrepresent the nomination. Nowhere in the nomination does it say anything about whether catalog numbers have significance to anyone. I'm an album collector myself. I'm working on a record label discography article right now...I certainly find the catalog numbers to be useful toward those interests. Rather, I questioned the usefulness of lumping a seemingly arbitrary handful of record labels' catalog systems together in a single article, rather than discussing each label's system separately in the individual articles about each label (since the various labels' systems have nothing to do with one another). As clearly stated in the nomination, the reasons for deletion are 1) lack of clear scope, 2) seemingly arbitrary inclusion criteria, 3) reliance upon a single, unreliable source for nearly all of the content. How could those issues be fixed by cleanup? --IllaZilla (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A key part of my argument was that there weren't enough (any?) reliable sources for the subject. Pretty certain that's a valid reason for deletion (that still hasn't been countered.) I think it's rather clear that's what the nomination was driving at too, even if it didn't say it word for word. (What do you think he's getting at when he says that the only 2 sources present are unreliable and that the article creator didn't understand the notion of an RS to begin with? Do we really need to plaster every nomination with GNG NOT MET at the end?) Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wow, the direction of this AFD is baffling to me. I've never seen so many experienced editors advocate keeping an article without any reliable sources present and without proposing any new usable ones. (at least not since the pre-2010 AFD days.) Yes, AFD is not cleanup, but that doesn't change that nothing beyond anecdotal "WP:ITSNOTABLE" arguments have been given so far in favor of keeping. No one has established how this meets the WP:GNG. "There's potential to improve this" type arguments are only valid when an actual potential path forward is presented - like providing actual reliable sources that could be used. No one has done that, and improvement hasn't happened organically since its inception in 2005. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm equally baffled. I've been a Wikipedian for over 11 years (less active these days, after a significant wikibreak), worked on hundreds of articles, been involved in numerous behind-the-scenes discussions, am very familiar with policies and best practices, and I'm personally a big record collector geek...and I look at this article and think "what the heck is this doing on Wikipedia?" I feel like I'm in Bizarro World reading all these keep !votes. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Keep ~~per User:Sergecross73~~. Keep because it's an incredibly valuable resource. IAR because S'73 is right that the sourcing is sub-standard. Normally, I'm a stickler for sourcing, but normally, somebody's trying to push some private agenda (promotion of a company, political, etc) or there's a question of backing up a WP:BLP. Nothing like that applies here. I'd be OK if some other suitable home (i.e. another wiki, with compatible licensing, and sufficient stability/reliability) could be found and we moved it there. But, lacking that, I'm fine with proudly flying the This is what encyclopedias are all about, damn the rules banner. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it another way, we have rules to help us keep the crap out. We should not be a slave to the contrapositive of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are you !voting "keep per Serge", when I'm one of the most ardent supporters of deleting? What is going on in this AFD? Is this some sort of practical joke on me or something? This whole AFD makes zero sense. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of an IAR per Serge. I know you're arguing to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But how is it "IAR per Serge"? I'm not advocating we IAR. I'm saying it's a clear cut time to follow the rules. It fails the GNG. There's are no RS's for this topic. Not a single person has provided any sources. Every keep argument has been based around vague, anecdotal claims of WP:ITSNOTABLE. You're going to "per Setge" based on that? Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the fundamental point of WP:IAR. You are correct that according to our rules, the sourcing sucks, and it probably doesn't meet WP:GNG, and a few other problems. What I'm saying is despite all that, I think the encyclopedia is better for having this article. My per User:Sergecross73 seems to upset you, so I've struck that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that much, at least. When you say "per someone", it's saying there's some sort of agreement on stances, which is fundamentally not the case here. I don't agree with cop-out rationales like that. If we resort to that sort of reasoning, a couple editors could and together to keep just about anything from being deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are remined to argue/!vote in light of WP:AADD and make policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, I think this probably is an encyclopaedic subject (certainly more so than some of the minutiae we have on popular culture sections). Despite what I've seen above, I think this may actually meet GNG too. But yes, it needs lots of work. – SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But how? Not a single person has proven this. Or even rationally argued it. They just go WP:ITSNOTABLE. Yes, record labels are obviously notable, but why in the world would their numbering systems be both notable, and be encyclopedic to list out like this, especially with zero reliable sources documenting this so far. Similarly, cereal is a notable subject, but "production numbers of cereal". Most mass produced commercial products have internal numbers like this. We don't have articles for anything else like that. And for good reason, there's not even a hint of independent notability in the numbering systems. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, Can I give you some well-meant advice? Whether you take it or not is up to you, but it is given in entirely good faith from someone who has (to the best of my knowledge) never interacted with you? The advice is that you should probably stop questioning every single person who has !voted to keep the article. I'm sure you don't mean to give the impression, but it does look like BLUDGEONing when you're so actively questioning every keep !voter. It may be best to just step away and let it runs its course. If the keep decision goes against you, does it really matter that much? - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's terrible advice. I'd understand your point if this was all about subjective differences in the interpretive aspects of policy (source reliability, significant coverage, how many sources does it take to meet the WP:GNG, etc) but there hasn't been a single policy-based keep vote so far. Even you've chosen to change the subject rather than say anything of substance. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not terrible, it's just advice that you don't want to accept. I see I'm not the first person to have suggested this to you: The Rambling Man has already observed it. Never mind, if it continues and someone take a little heavier action than just giving advice, you can't say you were unaware that you were doing it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please recheck the discussion. Rambling Man was speaking to Illazilla, not me. If you've got further grievances, take it to my talk page. If you're not going to explain your invalid !vote, you're just disrupting discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on trying to dismiss the opinions of others just because you don't like them. BLUDGEONing all you disagree with and accusing people of being disruptive will only ever backfire on you, particularly when a polite request has been so rudely snubbed without any sense that you are in any way in the wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not. There's nothing wrong with asking for clarification when people don't make policy-based rationales. You've refused to make a policy based argument, and have now falsely accused me of being warned of bludgeoning of others. I don't think it's crazy to say this isn't helping advance this discussion of this articles notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but split content into separate articles for each label. Because there are many different record labels all with their own arbitrarily chosen sets of catalogue numbers for various releases, they shouldn't all be stuck into the same article due to having basically nothing to do with each other. If they are worthy of inclusion they should be included in articles for each label (rather than for each format) or in the articles about the labels. However, there is a case for keeping a Lists of catalogue numbers for music releases or something like that (if the content is indeed worthy of inclusion), without any in-depth information. Jc86035 (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly is that case though? No one has established an actual case. There are no sources discussing this as an independently notable subject. Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Not sure, really. There are some sources and lists of sources that I found in this cursory search, with probably the most useful probably being this Yale University Library page which lists a number of books which have compiled catalogue numbers for old records. Jc86035 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that those are really only databases that confirm their existence though. I don't doubt they exist really, it's just that, this isn't even something we bother to track on any song, album, band, or record label article. I don't understand rationalizing then how we'd track them all in one place like this. (or per record label even, when most record label articles are relatively short themselves. I don't think we need to track this anywhere, but if we did, it'd make more sense as a subsection at the respective label article.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is exactly the kind of list that interests me as an anally retentive person. But as an encyclopedic article, Sergecross73 and IllaZilla have pinpointed the problem – *how* exactly is this ever going to be improved and reliably sourced? Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a loosely connected directory of information, some of it is unsourced. The referenced content should be moved to the respective articles so it is not lost. It's likely that anyone interested in catalogue numbering will be able to find the content in those articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has no third party sourcing (99% of it is sourced from a single site, 78discography.com) and is just a bloated mess of trivia. None of this info would exist on the main articles, so why does a separate, exclusive one for this exist? It being a "valuable resource" should not be used as a defense when it fails other Wikipedia guidelines, which I believe is the case here. See WP:NOTCATALOGUE. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTCATALOG. Lots of !keep votes here saying WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT yet no one has provided sources to show how it meets WP:GNG. What am I missing here? TarkusAB^talk 20:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the very good arguments put forward by Rambling Man. Cassianto^Talk 12:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all well and good saying how "useful" this article is and how nice it is to have it here, but this is an encyclopaedia, and the sources used in the article are just appalling. Ditto TarkusAB's comments from above. I also agree with IllaZilla that it's far from clear what the article's trying to cover. JG66 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm totally baffled at finding even one "keep" vote at this AfD, never mind the deluge of votes built entirely on such blatant non-arguments as "This seems an excellent resource". I haven't been around the music WikiProjects for a few months, but last I checked, there's a consensus that we don't list catalog numbers at articles for songs and albums. Which makes sense, because those numbers are completely meaningless outside of the record collecting hobby, and Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. So what sense is there in explaining the catalog numbering systems, much less having an article which arbitrarily groups together a bunch of numbering systems for every single label? In short: The article is poorly conceived, and covers material which is clearly outside Wikipedia's scope.--Martin IIIa (talk) 05:00, 19 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. Sandstein 17:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiesław Żyznowski[edit]

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

Nonnotable person Staszek Lem (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it looks too much like a CV on LinkedIn. Fails GNG. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:03, 12 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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbered roads in Toronto[edit]

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

Empty and before last edit page was useless and a very small. The stuff on the page was replaced by list of north-south roads in Toronto as the two roads on the page fall under that catargiry BrandonALF (talk) 02:30, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; not a valid rationale. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:52, 12 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) 16:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Kisicki[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with a brief filmography consisting mainly of nameless bit parts. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently, I see one WP:RS from People that is a bit dated. The Obit seems to be sourced from Wikipedia and stories like this aren't so much about Kisicki. I am having trouble supporting WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local level stage actor lacking notability, film credits are way below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 13 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. There's no clear preference among possible alternatives to deletion. Sandstein 17:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Choice for a Lost Generation?![edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Choice for a Lost Generation?! (2nd nomination)

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

This is a group of WP:permastubs about albums of the Dutch punk rock band Heideroosjes that are all completely unsourced and contain only basic track listing information (and, in some cases, comments about other releases of the same songs or comments about who played which instruments). There is no commentary by music critics or any other indication of notability. This nomination for deletion also includes the following additional articles:

Footnote: This would empty the category Category:Heideroosjes albums

These were previously nominated for deletion and discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2002 Tour Compilation. While most people who commented supported deletion, they were kept on the procedural principle that instead of having a longer list of articles for deletion, the nomination should be broken up into smaller ones. This is the third of those smaller groups. (Strictly speaking, Sinema (album) is not completely unsourced, as it cites a track listing.) —BarrelProof (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 14:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge all with Heideroosjes. The band itself is barely notable, so there's no way each album deserves its own article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge all to List of Heideroosjes albums or something similar. The band has quit too recent to make these albums fade from memory. Most of them have been in hitlists, at least here in NL, so notable. PPP (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 12 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Go[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, unsourced. HindWiki^Connect 01:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HindWiki^Connect 01:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There is hardly any content and gist and moreover, there are no references at all. Not worthy of an article. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Non-notable song by a non-notable pre-teen garage band. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-this user has been creating many unnotable articles about artists. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:27, 14 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. Sandstein 10:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantina Laredo[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "has 35 branches throughout the USA, plus two abroad; probably notable". I don't think size matters - it is not a criteria on any notability guideline. The article doesn't cite a single source and is a pure WP:YELLOWPAGES entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large enough chain to be notable in its market. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you copypaste this vote from somewhere else? This article doesn't make any claim about size outside claiming it is a chain. A chain can be two outlets, you know. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I actually bothered to look it up (and found it has 37 branches, as you even stated when you quoted me in your nomination above!). Did you do the same? Please try to WP:AGF! Your comments about copypasting seem anything but. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you found a source that's better then company's homepage, please do share it. Adding to the article would be nice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - That was from the company's homepage, which clearly lists the restaurants (so hardly only two!). Or do you maybe think it's all an elaborate hoax? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete total and complete failure of any even minimal standards of notability. There is not even an inkling of any source except the restaurant website. Wikipedia is not a free for all business ad platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 30 November 20[17 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources on google books I've found so far: [12][13][14][15][16]. Not sure why Johnpacklambert seems to think that there is no other sources (google books and news search at least? c'mon). Don't see much about a chain though - apart from the last source, it is just individual reviews of restaurants, so not sure about notability. Need national/atleast region attention for WP:NORG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Well individual restaurant reviews are routine according to WP:CORPDEPTH; so only one source of the first 5 is useful;I have been able to find two more sources, but of all, only the the first has a full meaty paragraph on it. Not enough for WP:NCORP; I do think more sources could be found. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC) It's actually an international chain - with 100 branches in the U.S., UK, and other countries; I was able to find a restaurant review in the independant, which again only has a few words on the chain itself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Goldstein, Robin (2009). Fearless Critic Austin Restaurant Guide: The Brutally Honest Guide to Eating in and Around Austin, Texas (2 ed.). New York: Fearless Critic. p. 143. ISBN 0981830560. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The book notes:
  Cantina Laredo is one of the more ambitious restaurants to participate in the large-scale, city-subsidized development of the area dubbed the "Second Street District." Although this one is actually on Third Street, it looks and feels more connected to the yup-and-coming new row of botiques and eateries on Second.
  We must first disclose that Cantina Laredo is unfortunately a subsidiary of Consolidated Restaurant Operations (the name alone makes us shudder), of Spaghetti Warehouse and El Chico fame. Designers have done an okay job of avoiding that chain-restaurant feel; although furnishings are trendified, they still manage to feel soothing and intimate. We are booth fans, and particularly like the cozy two-person booths here. Lighting is dim, and there's a certain pleasant bustle to the place. But Laredo really has been suffering from the Consolidated Restaurant Ooperations feel lately, with seemingly high staff turnover, an increasingly impersonal experience, and sketchy execution.
2. Froeb, Ian (2015-05-01). "Cantina Laredo gussies up Mexican cuisine; Casa Del Mar embarrasses it". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  The upscale, Dallas-based chain Cantina Laredo boasts locations as diverse as Abu Dhabi, Branson, Chicago and, since October of last year, Clayton. Whether it resembles anything that you might find in Mexico itself is debatable. The menu nods at traditional Mexican fare, but it also includes more than a few concessions to the fajitas-and-margaritas crowd.
3. Harrigan, Denise Owen (2012-10-25). "Dining Out: Cantina Laredo keeps it fresh". The Post-Standard. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  Cantina Laredo, by comparison, is brand new in these parts: It’s the offspring of a national chain and potentially at odds with our locavore instincts.
  ...
  The 34-restaurant Cantina Laredo chain is at the upscale end of the even larger company, Consolidated Restaurant Operations. Each cantina is customized to its site.
  Destiny USA — the first mall to recruit a Cantina Laredo — inspired a linear, minimalist decor with polished wood, rustic stone and contemporary black leather.
4. Buhman, Charles (2005-08-11). "Cantina Laredo Already A Texas-Sized Hit". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  A Texas-based chain's first foray into South Florida, Plantation's Cantina Laredo moved in last month with all sorts of corporate-concept banter promising authentic, gourmet Mexican cuisine in a sophisticated atmosphere.
  ...
  We weren't exactly wowed by Cantina Laredo's chicken dishes - the camarónes escondidos seemed way too salty, and the fajitas had an overwhelmingly smoky taste.
  The beef fajitas, on the other hand, were marvelous, and the achiote roasted pork quesadillas, pure comfort food.
5. Tilton, Meg (2008-07-24). "Review: Cantina Laredo". Daily Camera. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  Cantina Laredo prides itself on gourmet Mexican fare, and the restaurant's food is indeed a step up from that you find at many Mexican eateries. So are the price tags. My favorite entrée at Cantina Laredo, the camarones escondidos -- or hidden shrimp -- cost $18.99. The cheaper things I tried tended to come in somewhat small portions. My overall impression of the restaurant was that the food was tasty but often overpriced by a few dollars per dish. Still, Cantina Laredo is a welcome addition to Twenty Ninth Street. The fare is interesting and the ambience inviting.
  ...
  One way Cantina Laredo distinguishes itself from many Mexican restaurants is with its sauces. Don't expect just the standard choices here, like red or green chile. The hidden shrimp, for instance, are topped with a delicious chipotle-wine sauce. The peppery flavor builds in your mouth as you chew, while a smoky undercurrent complements the sweetness of the shrimp.
6. Owens, Shelley (2005-11-05). "Mexican cuisine shakes off fast-food image". The Stuart News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  The location will depend finding a site and a financial partner, something Lemmer has done in Melbourne and with the white-tablecloth Mexican concept, Cantina Laredo, which he has opened in Plantation and Fort Myers.
  El Chico Cafe and Cantina Laredo are both concepts of Consolidated Restaurant Operations Inc. in Dallas.
  ...
  At $18 to $22 per check, Cantina Laredo patrons repast on grilled fish, chicken and steaks like those served in gourmet restaurants in Mexico City.
  The company has been in Florida since 1984 and done well, said Harkey. "Len Lemmer's Fort Myers store "has proven to be the number one Cantina Laredo in our entire system."
  The first restaurant in this area will open in spring 2006 in Palm Beach Gardens on PGA Boulevard just west of Military Trail. That store is scheduled to open in spring 2006.
7. Lunsford, Ja'Rena (2005-10-07). "Cantina Laredo to bring gourmet Mexican' fare to Penn Square". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  Cantina Laredo, a "gourmet Mexican restaurant, is opening in Penn Square Mall, replacing the space Garcia's once occupied. The new restaurant will be the first Cantina Laredo in the state.
  ...
  It's not an El Chico, but Cantina Laredo is one of the brands under Consolidated Restaurant Operations Inc., the company that operates El Chico, Spaghetti Warehouse and various other concepts. CRO did not return calls.
  ...
  Cantina Laredo has 11 locations in Texas, Arizona and Florida. Menu items include signatures such as fajitas, tacos and enchiladas as well as specials including shrimp and 16 ounce ribeyes.
8. Axley, Michele (2001-08-17). "More than a watering hole - Dishes live up to enticing ambience at Cantina Laredo". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  GOOD-LOOKING: You'd be hard-pressed to find a more attractive Mexican restaurant than Cantina Laredo - both in drive-up appeal and décor. Its hacienda-style stucco exterior sets it apart from other tenants at the northeast corner of Preston and Royal.
  Dim, strategic lighting and upscale Southwestern appointments make the dining room a soothing spot in which to linger when there's not a crowd. When jammed, Cantina Laredo displays the jumpin' side of a dual personality. As the 3-year-old restaurant's name suggests, the huge bar (20-plus bar stools) is at the heart of the space, with a regular crowd bellying up for food and drink.
  ...
  A SECOND LOOK: Before checking out the restaurant for review, we had dined there on occasion, and though its attractiveness and handsome bar had us hooked for a while,we found the food to be inconsistent. On a recent return visit, we were delighted to find a significant improvement.
9. Patrick, Mary (2009-02-20). "Cantina Freshens Up - Tex-Mex Traditions". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  Cantina Laredo is a chain restaurant, but it's not just another version of the Tex-Mex chains that popped up everywhere in the 1990s. The dishes are of a much higher quality, as are the ingredients. Although, beware; the prices are higher as well.
  ...
  Cantina Laredo provides Mexican fare a cut above the ordinary - and quite a few cuts above with some dishes. If you go, make sure to order the guacamole. But also be prepared to pay a bit more than you are used to at other Mexican chains.
10. Burks, Erica (2008-02-15). "Fill up on Mexican fare at Cantina Laredo". The Florida Times-Union. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  If you are expecting real gut-busting, jalapeno-laden Mexican food at Cantina Laredo, you are in the wrong place. Even the name should clue you in: Cantina Laredo. Can it get any more corporate than that?
  But if you are in the market for some relatively good Tex-Mex food in an elaborately styled "cantina," this is your spot. It is located in that little gold mining village the locals like to call "the Town Center," where even on a Wednesday night, the wait is 30 minutes long. We smartly made reservations and enjoyed some seriously good tequila while our table was being prepared.
  ...
  While the decor is refreshing, we found the food to be hit-and-miss. ...
  All in all, I may not call Cantina Laredo true "gourmet" Mexican food, but it definitely is an improvement on some of the more generic "ground beef and taco shell" places around town. We'll go back, and we will definitely make reservations when we do.
11. Stovall, Waltrina (1991-03-08). "Cantina Laredo". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  The Cantina Laredo in the Corner Shopping Center can't be judged so easily. The salsa is warmed, a nice touch, and it has large tomato pieces, also a plus. But it holds so little else -- scant onion and jalapeno burn -- that ultimately it is boring. Ditto for the pico de gallo, mostly onion and mushy tomatoes. But look past the batch-produced items and Catina Laredo, which is owned by El Chico, offers some out-of-the-ordinary fare.
  ...
  The original Cantina Laredo opened in Addison in 1984; this one last summer, and more are reportedly in the works. But don't judge them by their chain aspirations -- or their salsas. They offer good, reasonably priced Tex-Mex.
12. Steinberg, Steve (1998-07-24). "The streaks of Laredo - Inconsistencies make dining at new cantina a borderline experience". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  Cantina Laredo, Gene Street's stylish new place at Preston Royal, sure looks good. Dallas' Mr. Restaurant has broken away from the border cliche of earlier Cantinas and their sibling El Chico cafes. Employee-designed, it's muy nuevo Laredo, all cool and contemporary, with rough-plastered sand-colored walls, low ceilings, track and recessed lighting - sort of postmodern Southwestern with a splash of mission style. No kitschy, Disney-esque touches here.
  ...
  But if you look this pretty, you ought to cook this pretty. And we hit some ugly spots on our first visit.
  Most of our entrees were served tepid. At the other extreme, a dessert brownie was burned. Chicken came in various guises, but all of them were dry and unappealing.
  The kitchen couldn't plead a rush-hour crunch; the restaurant was less than a quarter full when we dined on a Sunday afternoon.
  ...
  Service on both visits was prompt, polite and eager. Cantina Laredo's task is to see that the food's consistency comes up to the same level. Until then, we're thinking "Never on Sunday."
13. Chronister, Bill (2009-08-04). "Cantina Laredo set to sizzle". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  The restaurant is the first Ohio iteration of the 30-unit chain.
  ...
  Cantina Laredo aims for sophistication in its menu and decor, the latter through blond wood and black leather, with a sweeping bar, a series of dining rooms, an all-weather patio and a small, three-season space.
  That bar is covered with Texas limestone, and behind it, along with regular offerings, are 50 brands of tequila, available by the drink or in flights for tastings.
14. Rice, Dale (2006-07-27). "After Appetizer, Things Go South at Cantina Laredo". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  Cantina Laredo, an upscale Mexican chain with nearly a dozen locations in Texas, opened its first Austin site three months ago in the new Second Street shopping and entertainment district on the ground floor of the AMLI building. The place has two things going for it: a location in a vibrant area and a sleek, stylish dining room that has the feel of a hip, urban environment.
  That's good, because the one thing it doesn't have is food worth going there for.
  ...
  Cantina Laredo has a lot of work to do. On average, the food there is merely acceptable, which merits neither a star nor a recommendation to drive across town to eat there.
15. Passy, Charles (2007-09-14). "The Treats of Laredo". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  Cantina Laredo is a Mexican restaurant that defies easy categorization. It's not your neighborhood Tex-Mex joint, where you head for a cheese-laden combo platter, endless bowls of chips and maybe a frozen margarita (or two or three). Nor does it quite qualify as a citadel of sophisticated Mexican cooking a la Rosa Mexicano.
  Instead, Cantina Laredo aspires to be a mix of the two, appealing to a slightly upscale crowd but not one that wants to be too daring with its choice of cuisine. The result? An altogether different approach to south-of-the-border-style dining. Call it Suburban Mex.
  ...
  Cantina is part of a growing nationwide chain, with more than 20 restaurants throughout the country. So its Suburban Mex formula may not be so new, after all. But the appeal is still there, provided you go in with the right expectations.
16. Floyd, Nell Luter (2017-08-29). "Cantina Laredo wows from food to atmosphere". The Clarion-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  The restaurant is owned by local investors and Consolidated Restaurant Operations is a partner as well, in addition to being the operator, he said. “It’s a 50-50 partnership,” he said.
  Cantina Laredo first opened in 1984 in Addison, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. There are 35 locations in the United States, with additional locations in Abu Dhabi and London.
17. Kramer, Julia (2011-11-07). "Cantina Laredo and III Forks. Restaurant reviews". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  True to its Orwellian-sounding name, Consolidated Restaurant Operations Inc. is a Texas-based corporation that operates more than 100 restaurants in the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. Of those, more than 30 are Cantina Laredos and seven are III Forks steakhouses, each of which recently opened a Chicago location. The two-story behemoth that is Cantina Laredo takes up a good chunk of a city block near the finally-not-under-construction Grand Red Line stop, while a few blocks to the east...
18. Macleod, Tracey (2010-07-23). "Cantina Laredo, St Martin's Courtyard, 10 Upper St Martin's Lane, London WC2". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2017-12-19.
  The article notes:
  Spoiler alert. This review contains details of the single worst dish the reviewer has yet encountered in her professional career. If you don't want to know the ending, or are reading this in the hope of finding a great new Mexican restaurant, look away now.
  I didn't want to hate Cantina Laredo. Good Mexican food can be a wonderful thing, and the arrival in central London of an American institution serving "gourmet Mexican food" sounded like something to celebrate.
  ...
  So trust me, I went to Cantina Laredo in the genuine hope of some vivid, authentic Mexican food. Founded in Dallas, the brand is already well established in the States. The London branch, operating under franchise, occupies a new development on the traffic-clogged edge of Covent Garden, just up the road from Stringfellows. Border country, in other words, patrolled by hungry travellers who have journeyed many miles by bridge and by tunnel in search of sustenance.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cantina Laredo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cantina Laredo received significant coverage in a Robin Goldstein book. It has received significant coverage in multiple regions: Colorado (Daily Camera), Florida (The Florida Times-Union, Miami Herald, The Palm Beach Post, The Stuart News, and The Tampa Tribune), Mississippi (The Clarion-Ledger), Missouri (St. Louis Post-Dispatch), New York (The Post-Standard), Ohio (The Columbus Dispatch), Oklahoma (The Oklahoman), and Texas (Austin American-Statesman and The Dallas Morning News).
Cantina Laredo received significant coverage in a UK newspaper, The Independent. It has received persistent coverage between 1991 and 2017. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Cunard (talk) 06:25, 19 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. The consensus is that the subject of this article satisfies the general notability guideline on the basis of sources that are available which provide significant coverage. Mz7 (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump dolls[edit]

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

Non-notable merchandising of Trump's likeness, fails WP:PRODUCT. See also recent deletion of "Trump fragrances" along the same lines. — JFG ^talk 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Comfortably passes WP:GNG. Some source examples include the following (more are available): [17],[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep plenty of refs, in article and elsewhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV dating back to 2004.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per North America passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:00, 17 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. Sandstein 10:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jam Cruise[edit]

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

Delete: thoroughly non-notable and completely commercially promotional "article". Quis separabit? 01:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant advertisement posing as an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obvious advertisement. Zhangj1079 ^talk 04:19, 12 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. Sandstein 10:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. The sources are exclusively press releases and based on press releases, trivial mentions, directory listings and blogs. Rentier (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's true that the sources just trivially mention the company and doesn't provide meaty coverage. Moreover, the overview section reads more like an advertisement to me. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:24, 12 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. Mz7 (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Douglas shooting[edit]

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

I imagine there will be claims that the sporadic updates by largely regional sources constitutes "ongoing coverage". But really, it is WP:NOTNEWS and there wasn't any WP:INDEPTH analysis. This incident simply did not receive substantial national or international attention or historical significance. Heck, there weren't even any routine repercussions from the investigation or civil suit; the shooting was deemed justified. Of course, no one has to be charged to make an incident notable but it certainly would have created some case of significance in an otherwise unnotable event. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The shooting and death are not of lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm not seeing lasting significance or societal impact here. Coverage is routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it passes GNG it still fails WP:NOTNEWS. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:04, 16 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. Sandstein 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vickie Vértiz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are unfortunately mostly webpages and neighborhood papers and awards seem to be obscure. Agricola44 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 04:20, 19 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. Sandstein 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Derbyshire Chargers[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur rugby league team. Doesn't appear to have ever appeared in any competition at national level. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midlands Rugby League Division Two, the league/division/? that the team competed in. (Note I've created ((R from team)) to tag these sort of redirects.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - do not have to play at national level.Fleets (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the club doesn't appear notable. Mattlore (talk) 06:14, 15 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. Sandstein 10:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Loo[edit]

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

Not convinced of the notability of this person. Article seems promotional and the sources are not very strong. A lot of IP contributions that may be COI. I think a discussion would be worthwhile. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with @Philafrenzy -- this is not a fansite or LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads too much like a resume. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This entrepreneur is quite well known in Malaysian and Singaporean news. However, the article reads very much like a promotion and CV. Would a cleanup be possible? Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was a major contributor to this topic. As mentioned by Ernestchuajiasheng, he is well known in Malaysia and Singapore and the article is properly referenced. He has also been in the news again lately. Perhaps put a note in Wikipedia:WikiProject Malaysia if you really want to gauge notability as they will be able to provide a better view of the subject. – SMasters (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a coat rack for information on his company, mainly because articles on companies get better scrutinized and need better sourcing, even though the biographies of living people guildelines should make it the other way around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopelesssly promotion to the exgtent it could have been G11. "Bryan Loo and his company are now focusing its resources on moving forward in its growth story with its 100-strong workforce." DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 15 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ellis[edit]

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

Only one notable character, does not meet WP:GNG. Created by blocked editor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for own article. Only one notable role with next to no filmography otherwise. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My thoughts exactly, @Beemer69:. Not notable enough to have an article as shown by the stubby depth of the article itself. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Not to be confused with Professor Ellis who is probably notable. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete guidelines require multiple notable roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Hollyoaks_characters_(2013)#Tegan_Lomax seems sensible until she does some more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:48, 13 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. But without prejudice to undeletion for the purpose of merging into a broader list of Trump products, if any such article is created. Sandstein 10:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald J. Trump Signature Collection[edit]

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

Defunct clothing line, whose notability is not asserted independently of its association with Donald Trump, therefore fails WP:PRODUCT.

A large section of the article is dedicated to a 2011 lawsuit, which could be briefly mentioned in Legal affairs of Donald Trump, as that article is currently silent on this particular case.

The rest covers marketing of the 2004 product launch, and campaign fodder from 2015/2016. This last bit may go into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, if it's not already there. That article now says that in 2015 Macy's announced it would phase out its Trump-branded merchandise over Trump's comments about Mexicans, which seems a sufficient summary of what there is to know in relation to this brand. — JFG ^talk 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also the recent deletion of "Trump fragrances" along the same lines. — JFG ^talk 01:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It was a well-known product line (even before Trump launched his campaign). The fact that you are suggesting the the content of the article be split and added into two separate articles supports it notability. A reader should not have to go to two different articles to learn about one topic.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am only suggesting to salvage a couple of sentences, especially to avoid losing information about a business lawsuit that received some press coverage. That does not make the product line independently notable. — JFG ^talk 01:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 03:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just have an article on Donald Trump products into which we can smerge all this stuff? It's not like we tend to have individual articles for each of the enterprise-branded products of any celebrity. bd2412 T 00:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the best idea to me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trump puts his name on lots of prodcuts. There are ways to cover his business endevors besides little articles on each of his attempts to increase name recognition and profit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn product line; the controversies appear to be minor. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or all celebrity-branded products. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 16 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. Due to low participation, this is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Mz7 (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muskets (band)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BAND. Minimal coverage in reliable secondary sources; certainly insufficient to make a claim at WP:GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the coverage listed in the references section enough to pass the general notability guideline. Some of the sources I would not consider reliable, but others I do, particularly Frontview Magazine, Upset Magazine, and Punktastic. Granted, I wasn't familiar with any of these sources before this. Not extremely extensive, but it seems enough to me. Jujutacular (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 12 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.