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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Carrion[edit]

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

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

Article was prodded for deletion in June 22, 2017, subsequently deleted and then restored a year later after this deprod request made by an IP claiming to be Sasha Carrion herself. When I noticed the deprod, I tried to clean things up a bit a find some better sources per WP:BEFORE; however, I haven't really been able to find the kind of WP:SIGCOV that is usually required to meet WP:BIO. It's certain that Carrion has appeared on a number of TV/radio programs as a guest expert, but I don't believe just that makes her Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article. I also asked about this at WT:BIOGRAPHY#Sasha Carrion, where AfD was suggested. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I can't find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by GNG, and can't think of any special subject-specific guidelines (like WP:ATH) that might apply. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I tried to find sources in some large newspapers and couldn't. Appears to fail WP:NBIO. The current sources used in the article are primary or in-universe. —PaleoNeonate – 03:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Good rule of thumb I preach is that when you are dealing with someone "famous" in the era of the Internet and you can't find enough resources to prove notability within a 20-minute Google search, then they aren't notable. Even if there were notable print citations, they would be mentioned on the Internet somewhere. Don't spend your precious time trying to find the unfindable. Sgerbic (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with no significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources, noting that though several TV and radio show appearances could be verified, those sources fall under primary sources and are not sufficient to assert notability. Reliable secondary sources are thus far elusive. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is one indepth article, but it is only one, and it is only available from the subject's own site, even though there it is claimed to have been published in multiple newspapers. --GRuban (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lack of detailed WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions in few articles does not meet WP:GNG--DBigXrayᗙ 19:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While he might fail WP:MMABIO, there is no consensus whether he also fails WP:GNG, with delete !voters mostly only citing the former and not discussing the later. Any new nomination has to take into account that subjects can be notable even if they fail WP:MMABIO. SoWhy 14:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Belingon[edit]

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

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

Subject is a MMA fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO as subject has not fought in tier one promotion. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 22:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of ONE Championship - it may not be the UFC, but it's a pretty significant east-Asian tournament. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simonm223 Subject fails Wikipedia MMA fighter notability guidelines - see WP:MMABIO. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I certainly note that this is your interpretation as the nominator. I disagree with your interpretation. However I have said my piece and don't feel like debating here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simonm223, It is not my interpretation, it is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts guidelines for MMA fighter unde Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability - see WP:MMABIO that only fighters have fought 3 fights under tier one promotion (UFC or Invicta - see WP:MMATIER). Kindly refer to the links for your perusal. Thank you. 13:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly fails to meet the long established notability criteria for MMA fighers at WP:NMMA. No evidence is given that he's a notable martial artist (see WP:MANOTE). The routine coverage of his MMA fights does not show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Does the article, at its current state, pass WP:GNG? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this article meets WP:GNG and my reasoning is below the next comment. Papaursa (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone somehow writes an article that passes WP:GNG, would that be enough? For example, if you can write an article about this person using this source, which, should more than enough satisfy WP:GNG, would that be good enough? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about an article promoting his next fight and possible future fight in his drive to a second tier MMA title. I don't think it's enough to meet WP:GNG, but every editor needs to make his own decision. Papaursa (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "promoting his next fight and possible future fight" be a gross oversimplification of that article though. I mean, it's extensive enough that I can use that entire article as five or more references in this article. I'd put this in a category of a full-fledged article about this person, not some routing coverage of his next fight, and perhaps a prospective fight in the future that may or may not happen. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Quick web search shows he meets the WP:GNG with non-trivial coverage in quite a few independent big name news sources. ABS-CBN "ONE: Kevin Belingon frustrates Martin Nguyen to become interim champion"; BusinessWorld "Kevin Belingon all in for ‘biggest bout’ of career"; The Philippine Star "Belingon itching for Bibiano rematch: 'There's no escaping me'; GMA Network "I can take Nguyen's right hand, knew his game plan – Kevin Belingon". --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are routine sports reporting of results and pre-fight promotion for a second tier promotion's title fight. The article's sources are basically the type of coverage given to professional MMA fights all over the world. When this article was previously deleted he was the champion of a second tier MMA promotion and he still is, but he has yet to fight at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then "routine" is a pretty high level of coverage, that meets the WP:GNG. There are captains of industry that would be thrilled to have this many articles about them. We've got hundreds of articles about association football players and Olympic medalists without nearly this much coverage. --GRuban (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Man I don't get it, why do people here in wikipedia consider ONE Championship a second tier promotion where in fact it's the BIGGEST MMA promotions in ASIA.^[1] I think the real debate here is not Belingon but i think it's on the side of ONE Championship. I have read some of the arguments against ONE Promotions, and its only 1 thing and that is they lack on well-known and highly rank fighters. Kevin Belingon is a well-known fighter because of multiple media publications about him. But not a Top rated Fighter according to many MMA rankings because he fights on an outside western country promotions if he fights on UFC he will be easily on the Top 10 no doubt about it.

But currently there is NO independent MMA Rankings which covers all the MMA fighters around the globe and I would love to hear about it(if there's any), and we all know that there is NO independent World MMA Title to Fight on unlike Boxing were 4 independent organizations offer world championship titles. Any rich businessmen can create there own MMA promotions and get several high tier fighters, Top Rank for example can create a MMA promotions and MMA Title with the right MONEY to lure high ranking MMA fighters from multiple ranking publications to come to them, even Super Star Mayweather can create his own too. So I think that this should not be a standard basis of considering what Top tier MMA Promotions are, I think we should add the most important of all (Cultural and Influential Impact of the Organization for the Sport like "What did the promotion contributed to the MMA?","How did the organization help the fighters?","Did it improve the MMA scene in the region?","Did the MMA Promotion influence the economic, political and cultural identity of society on its region?) and so on. (i hope i'm making sense on this but yah.)

And ONE Championship has already made HISTORY not just here in the South East Asia and ASIA but the whole world, it has a large pool of fan base bigger than other top tier mma promotions, the GLOBAL media outlets are talking about ONE MMA, fight fans around the globe known ONE Championship, MMA is flourishing in South East Asia because of ONE Championship., and maybe they the ONE Championship will revamp the dying Japan MMA scene. ONE MMA has molded the future generations of MMA practitioners in Asia generally speaking, ONE has built the foundation of what might happen next on the promotions of MMA (like: show casing different martial arts in 1 fight card, (Grappling Only Match-up, Kick Boxing Muay Thai and now Boxing). and yet people disregard ONE MMA promotions as if it only exist in an unknown part of the world. They made several events on several countries and distributed it to influenced an estimate 1.7 billion people around the globe. And it's on business after 7 years and many more to come. You can't disregard someones achievement because he just fought on so called 2nd tier organization, even if the fights fans knows who is he, where he fights and who is he fighting. I believe this are the basis of why I firmly nominate ONE Championship to be promoted to Top Tier Organization and even if i fail to convince you my fellow Wikipedians on this one. ONE Championship and the people who supported it, have already made a significant mark on the global sports landscape. (English is not my first language, my deepest apologies on my mistakes and if you guys need sources, i will provide it later on but for now sorry)Dragonxtx (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about the notability of MMA organizations has been discussed in dozens, if not hundreds, of threads going back nearly a decade and they can be found in the archives at WT:MMA and WT:MMANOT. To summarize, an organization's notability is essentially based on how many world top 10 fighters they have (and they should be spread across the different weight classes). By consensus, the rankings at sherdog.com are used and there's been a belief that to be considered among the best you must fight the best, which is why MMA fighter notability is based on appearing in organizations that have the top fighters. I can tell you that reaching a consensus for MMA notability involved a lot of heated and sometimes nasty discussions. I just looked at the rankings for bantamweights and no one from One FC was listed, although Kyoji Horiguchi from Rizin is ranked 8th. It may also be worth considering (as an indicator of ONE's strength) that Belingnon has only 1 victory over a WP notable fighter and that was in Koetsu Okazaki's last fight (in other words a fighter not in his prime). Papaursa (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the MMA method of determining who gets automatic notability, because after all this is what it is (other sports do the same). Those who do not qualify are not automatically disqualified for an article, as long as the article passes WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er: "an organization's notability is essentially based on how many world top 10 fighters they have... By consensus, the rankings at sherdog.com are used..." What? You are arguing that our Notability guideline is based on a list maintained at a minor commercial web site? No. Just no. --GRuban (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that effectively out-sourcing our notability guidelines for a sport to Sherdog is not the best idea ever. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty standard over the years for combat sports including boxing and kickboxing.PRehse (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a thing has been done a certain way is not a reason to keep doing it that way. That said I think this is not the appropriate venue to debate the merits of overall project notability guidelines so I'll shut up on this now. Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While it appears he fails the guidelines under WP:MMABIO, he seems more than referenced enough for WP:GNG. The WP:MMABIO may need revision or discussion, but this is not the forum for that. Ifnord (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment On the basis of our conversations about revisions to WP:MMABIO I've started this thread to talk about that issue, linking it back to this AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and WP:SALT. Per the discussion here, the page Rayge DeMarco has also been salted to block recreation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond DeMarco[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Third creation of an article previously deleted twice at Rayge DeMarco (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayge DeMarco (2nd nomination)), Mr. DeMarco's professional name as a musician. Those articles were speedily deleted, due to a complete lack of verifiable sources – the current recreation omits Mr. DeMarco's entirely non-notable musical career, but reinstates his supposed hockey career, using a different source. However, an inspection of the "Hockey Database" website cited as a reference shows that it is in fact a single page created on a Weebly blog-hosting site, and there are no other entries in the "database" – in other words, it's fake. As stated in the previous AfD for Rayge DeMarco, Mr. DeMarco's supposed hockey career consisted of playing for two teams in a minor professional hockey league, but a search on HockeyDB.com (a genuine database of hockey players) shows that his name does not appear on it. In short, the whole article appears to be fake, and given its history, salting may be required for various permutations of the name. Article was created by an editor now banned for using multiple sock accounts. Richard3120 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This person is not a notable athlete (and is also not a notable musician). I did a careful Google search. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Searches turned up zero to show notability in any category, WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete if the claim to notability is fake and completely unsupported in any way, then delete with extreme prejudice. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Article may be a hoax based on research by Richard3120 and the fact that he's not mentioned among the nearly 637,000 hockey players listed at eliteprospects.com . Papaursa (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as Papaursa writes. Couldn't find reliable source articles about him. --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. A WP:BEFORE found not reference. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:NHOCKEY and source provided probably a fault web site. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY due to the clear lack of sources talking about the subject in great detail. possible WP:VANISPAM--DBigXrayᗙ 19:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under G4. Ifnord (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy-based ratiionale was presented by those arguing for keep or merge SpinningSpark 17:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Assembly of Evil[edit]

The Assembly of Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, and is too minor to merge (according to Marvel Wikia this team appears twice). Namenamenamenamename (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not discussed by secondary sources. Within the fiction, the group only appear in two issues of one series. The summary for that series name drops the group without context. Nothing would be lost by deleting this, but if it's redirected/merged, it should go to Cloak and Dagger (comics), since that's where they're relevant. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Argento. Not every character and group that has appeared needs to be mentioned in a list here, and certainly not in it's own article. Clear failure of GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:FANCRUFT which fails WP:GNG for lack of any type of referencing, either in article or elsewhere. Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No independent coverage, does not seem to be particularly important fictional group. --GRuban (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ. Completely non-notable on its own but enough material in there to be able to save at List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Ifnord (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. There is strong consensus here that this subject is not independently notable. Once content has been merged, the article itself could probably be deleted under CSD#G6, or redirected if editors feel it is a reasonable search term. Vanamonde (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death Squad (comics)[edit]

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

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

The groups don't meet WP:GNG, and are not notable enough to merge. The main group only appears twice according to Marvel Wikia; the Black Lama squad appears once, and the Magus squad doesn't even appear to have a Wikia page. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An insignificant part of the fiction that has no reliable outside sources. The few pages that link to this group can provide adequate context inline. Nothing would be lost by deleting the content, and nothing would be helped by merging it to another target. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Argento. Not every character and group that has appeared needs to be mentioned in a list here, and certainly not in it's own article. Clear failure of GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per nom. Hard term to search for, but seemingly no independent coverage. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ. Completely non-notable on its own but enough material in there to be able to save at List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Ifnord (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Made his professional debut today against De Graafschap (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arijanet Muric[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Userify Slightly WP:TOOSOON and a poorly sourced BLP at the moment - we will see if he features on Sunday, since he could debut very shortly. SportingFlyer talk 06:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Can be restored if/when he is notable. GiantSnowman 10:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Dutch league has just started, if his makes he debut, keep under WP:NFOOTBALL, however till then he should be in draft space. Govvy (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NFOOTY. Meets the professional standard. WP:GNG as well, but the professional standard is even more convincing. gidonb (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply Gidonb, You've been around long enough to understand these Notability guidelines, you're keep argument is floored. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Govvy: WP:NFOOTY applies in 7 days. The GNG applies right now. Can't tell if it is my WP longevity but I do miss the point of this nomination! ;-) gidonb (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep player now passes WP:NFOOTY, having played a professional match after the launch of this AFD. OZOO (t) (c) 18:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Industries[edit]

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

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

This article on a company has been without sources for the preceding 14 years. A BEFORE on JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, and newspapers.com fails to locate any. Fails GNG. ("Adams Industries" appears to be an incredibly common name that is used by a large number of extant industries right now as well.) Chetsford (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons given above. -Sonicwave ^(talk) 22:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nom and above, fails NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searching is hard, as described, does not seem to be related to the more notable Adam Aircraft Industries, couldn't find indepth coverage. --GRuban (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adams-Toman[edit]

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

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

This article on a company has been without sources for the preceding 14 years. A BEFORE on JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, and newspapers.com fails to locate any. Fails GNG. (In principal, have no problem with Draftify if someone were to want to take ownership of sourcing it.) Chetsford (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this directory from 1929 proves it existed, but probably isn't enough for notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP. Proof of existance does not equal notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nom and above, fails NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, couldn't find indepth coverage. --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by admin Athaenara. Reason:WP:A7 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will Phillips[edit]

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

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

Possible fails WP:BIO. A recent Google search brought up nothing on the person. I think he might just be famous for one event. In addition, the references in the article are possibily not reliable. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WillPhillllllips (talk · contribs) had made a couple of edits to the page. User name suggests they are editing their own article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 Article tagged with WP:A7 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Person is only known for a single event. Notability has not been established. Could not find anything in Google about this person either. MX (✉ • ✎) 20:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buriel Clay Theater[edit]

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

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

Non-notable theater created by a upe sock. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this seems like the sort of topic which would be notable. It has been around for awhile (since the 1980s as far as I can verify), but I don't really think that makes it "historical" as the article claims. Otherwise, I'm having a hard time finding in-depth coverage about this, even from local San-Francisco sources. According to the article African-American Shakespeare Company the theater is inside a city-owned complex, so the theater structure itself is highly unlikely to be or become notable. Creator is not identified as a sock, but certainly UPE is involved. I can't find notability here by any definition, despite searching for sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a theatre company would usually be notable I think. What is “UPE”? —Doncram (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure “usually notable”?CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That reply seems kind of unfriendly, unnecessarily. Sorry I can’t format better from my current device. What is a “upe sock” please? If there is a sockpuppet report or other evidence about what that is, could someone please link? —Doncram (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth was unfriendly about my question? I am on a mobile device and responded as efficiently as possible. UPE is easy to put into the search bar but it means undisclosed paid editing, so with that being said can you please explain what policy guideline or outcome supports such a statment as a “a theater company would usually be notable?”CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPE is easy to put into the search bar but that doesn't help; there is no definition of "UPE" and no mention of "undisclosed paid editing" [at] wp:UPE, which I had looked up already. The best guess (which I knew didn't make sense) I could make beforehand was that it stood for unpaid editing. Thank you for answering what it stands for, to you and perhaps to some others; if it is not defined I think the term should be avoided.

Anyhow there is no evidence here in this AFD or at the article Talk page that there was any paid editing here, and frankly I highly doubt that someone was paid for this page. I removed the negative tag about this from the article. Further at the editor's Talk page I see that they have been blocked with accusation of possibly engaging in paid editing, though I see no real evidence there either. I see the editor created a couple pages about musicians that might have involved copyvios, but there is nothing wrong apparent here.

About demand made that I explain myself, I was basically agreeing with User:78.26 who stated "this seems like the sort of topic which would be notable." African-American Shakespeare Company as a company is notable; I am very aware that historic theatre spaces/buildings are very often notable and listed on the National Register of Historic Places because of their importance to their communities (not saying this one is listed). The term "MAD" in the deletion nominator's chosen username suggests anger, and the AFD itself is a demand that others pay attention, and the nomination seems grounded in anger about paid editing without evidence. In this context then not answering a question about jargon used in the nomination and making a different demand upon the questioner (me) instead, comes across as angry to me. I hope this helps User:Chrissymad understand where I was coming from in reacting to their comment which I found inappropriate. --Doncram (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mad is part of my actual name, so your insinuation that it is any indication of my state of mind is nothing more than an egregious personal attack and I expect an apology. You need to stick to the topic at hand instead of pontificating a good faith users motivation based on a policy abiding username. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What rubbish. I gave you the courtesy of explaining part of how your editing rubbed me the wrong way; there is no personal attack in that. You could simply acknowledge being wrong that "UPE" is defined anywhere obvious in Wikipedia. And you could acknowledge that there is no evidence this article was created by paid editing. Even if it was, it is a notable topic. And you might consider whether making silly demands comes across as angry or not. --Doncram (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on with the attacks then. I am under no obligation to have regard for your feelings over a perfectly acceptable and normal response. You however are obligated to follow WP:CIVILITY as am I. My responses to you have been nothing but civil and yet you've attacked editors repeatedly over something you don't seem to understand. If you don't believe it was paid editing, ask the blocking administrator instead of accusing myself and another good faith editor of slander. I'll keep waiting for your apology for a blatant personal attack too. As far as UPE being obvious, you could have, I don't know, clicked the tag? Typed it into the search box? You have 150k edits, you're not new at this.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The attack in question was the username comment, as she said. If you think there is something wrong with her username, it belongs on the appropriate page, not here. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 19:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the term UPE is in fact defined in the section that WP:UPE redirects to. "Paid editing without such a declaration is referred to as Undeclared Paid Editing (UPE)". This text has been present since 20 June 2018. Chrissymad could have linked it in the nomination, but once one has searched for it there is no excuse for not knowing what it means. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 20:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my bad for not finding that text when I looked there first and again when I looked again later. Funny that Chrissymad was wrong in exactly what UPE means; when I returned there I think I might have searched on "undisclosed" there found nothing. It is a bit buried. Offhand it could be formatted better to make it more visible, and wp:UPE could be more specifically redirected to an ((anchor)) at the exact definition.

But, rubbish rubbish rubbish about a personal attack in my statement that "The term "MAD" in the deletion nominator's chosen username suggests anger....". It does suggest that to me, and I bet it has suggested that to other editors ChrissyMAD has been in conflict with, although perhaps they are unaware of it. As if names have no importance in suggesting anything; please tell that to advertisers paying trillions of dollars for brands. It is not just "mad" in their name, it is MAD in angry bolded shouting. :) --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram. You cannot judge the merits of one's opinions in an AfD off their username. If someone commented here with a pink signature 50px by 50px featuring a giant unicorn, you should not write off their opinions as immature, nor attack them for this. The "MAD" is capitalized as her entire username is capitalized, and the bold has nothing to do with anger. To quote from WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Vermont (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I am striking comments of mine above, which I have been criticized for, and about which I agree at least that they were off-topic relative to the merits of the article in question in this AFD. I was asked elsewhere to delete some or all of my comments, but that would make the others' comments look out of place and I think that is generally not wanted. Perhaps someone could simply collapse this thread as off-topic. --Doncram (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Couldn't find indepth coverage, it all seems to be "here is the current play", nothing about the theatre itself. --GRuban (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although probably move to African American Arts & Culture Complex and develop further. This is one of the theatres in that complex. Assuming this is about a somewhat historic, somewhat prominent theatre space, I would be glad for this to be kept outright if any more direct sourcing can be found. It is useful to define whom the place is named for, and I believe it is common for readers to look up information about theatre venues in Wikipedia. It is a theatre venue and/or a theatre company; we routinely have coverage of large and historical venues (although it is debatable whether this one is large enough or historical enough); and there is an obvious good alternative to redirection (which would be redirect/merge if African American Arts & Culture Complex already existed, but that is a redlink currently, so move and develop to be about the entire complex instead). The complex is larger and more obviously notable; it is a bigger public attraction (e.g. listed as a travel destination in TripAdvisor). Per wp:ATD we are obligated to seek alternatives, here is a good one. --Doncram (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I could see supporting that, but I did a search and couldn't find very much about the AAA&CC either, unfortunately. --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unable to find any significant coverage. It may be more likely that an Buriel Clay is notable, but this theatre does not appear to be. MB 02:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have developed the article somewhat, and revised it to be about the larger complex, preparing for move after this AFD is closed. It was already about that, in that it did include the "African American Arts & Culture Complex" name in bold. It includes dance spaces, the Sargent Johnson Gallery, a multi-use space, a conference room, and more. It seems to be a community center founded in 1989 which is no doubt significant in its neighborhood. I added a source or two more; there are more available. --Doncram (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, per everyone (mostly). Vermont (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't find anything to convince me it meets notability guidelines, nor is there significant coverage. ((u|zchrykng)) {T|C} 20:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing that it is notable. Only a small amount of local coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The references aren't about the venue but the different events held there. A movie or play may be notable but the local theatre where you see it isn't. Ifnord (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although there are a few opinions for delete, the overwhelming general consensus seems to be for keep. (non-admin closure) IWantGears5 (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hillfolk[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG. Article on a commercial product (a series of two game instructions booklets) has three references, two of which do not actually mention the product at all and are probably not RS even if they did, and the third of which is merely its name listed on a tiny game awards website (see below). Additional background follows:

• BEFORE search: The standard BEFORE search (Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, JSTOR) finds no RS to the following search strings: (hillfolk AND RPG) OR (hillfolk AND game) OR (hillfolk AND "Robin Laws") except for this brief mention in a holiday gift list round-up on WUVM-FM radio [1].
• Note on awards: The article claims the game won two awards, however: (1) we do not have an inherent notability criteria for commercial products which have won awards but otherwise fail GNG, (2) these are very tiny, niche awards that, themselves, are probably so un-notable that they don't qualify for WP articles. While an award like the Origins Award might be impressive for a game, the "Indie RPG Awards" and "Diana Jones Award" would realistically be the game industry's equivalent to the concrete industry's Alfred Lindell Award for Excellence in Reinforced Concrete Design [2]; something that is a relevant achievement to only a tiny sub-section of the population.
• Redirect / Merge not advised: Redirect or Merge should not be applied because the term "Hillfolk" is too common and is more likely to be used by visitors searching for unrelated, ethnographic/demographic articles such as Appalachian Americans than for info on a small game from 2013. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Diana Jones awards are notable even if the article needs a rewrite (the Indy RPG awards probably aren't). On the other hand as the awards committee is largely anonymous it is not provable that Robin Laws is not on the committee. The Diana Jones award link, now it's been fixed (and hasn't had a bot give a six year out of date link) also gives three paragraphs on the game. The nominator also clearly didn't bother checking the RPGamer link- yes, there is a single sentence at the link, but the single sentence says to click through to a seven paragraph article. (The Indy RPG Awards link is down). Neonchameleon (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources are almost invariably insufficient to meet our standards of "significant coverage". A majority of the AfCs we're declining these days have two sources. Proof of life is not proof of notability. The Diana Jones awards are notable Their existence has never been acknowledged by any mainstream media. They are a niche sectional award like the aforementioned concrete industry award. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources are multiple independent sources, and the sources in question provide in-depth information rather than being single line mentions. Just because you're declining them on AfC doesn't mean that you are following Wp:N when doing so. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And while on the subject it's just taken me all of 30 seconds to find an article specifically on the Diana Jones Award (rather than merely mentioning it in the context of something that won it) in Polygon. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in Polygon Like I said, "Their existence has never been acknowledged by any mainstream media." While the mention in Polygon may be fine for the article on the awards themselves, it fails as a demonstration of their wider societal importance to sustain one of their recipients. And, of course, this is aside from the fact that - unlike NFILM - we have no inherent notability standards for commercial products that permit them to overcome the GNG if they have received industry trophies like the Diana Jones Award (for the games industry) or the Alfred Lindell Award for Excellence in Reinforced Concrete Design (for the concrete industry). Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument here is that Polygon is a different industry. The Diana Jones award is for tabletop games, Polygon is for computer games. When the Alfred Lindell award gets write-ups in Interior Decorating magazines let me know - even if both are arguably about building houses. The other problem with your argument is that the Diana Jones award is reliable and does cover the award winners in non-trivial detail in a reliable manner so actually stands as a reliable source itself. (Arguably the solid paragraph for each nominee shortlisted is enough). Neonchameleon (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And also two sources are categorically enough for wp:NBOOK. RPGamer's one, the Diana Jones award is another. If Boz can dig up much in Designers & Dragons that will make a third. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added three more, for a total of five. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Neonchameleon. I will add Designers & Dragons to the article tomorrow, even though the nominator has argued against its use in other recent AFDS. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added Designers and Dragons along with two other RS: Geeknative and Le Maraudeur. The latter contains quite a bit of additional content in French that could be used to strengthen the article, but I have not had time to do that today. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Designers & Dragons was at question in this AFD, I believe everyone in this thread has been notified or participated in the RSN discussion on the book except for User:Neonchameleon and User:Imminent77. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even the nom has conceded that Designers & Dragons is reliable, and the discussion of Hillfolk is not trivial. The game has been extensively reviewed, received numerous awards, and is a clear GNG and NBOOK pass, even if it might fail NCEMENT. Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, not seeing a huge amount of sourcing, but it has won a couple of awards. CAN i SEE SOME GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH KEEP AND DELETE.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven - my argument for delete is that, even following the addition of sources, the article lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources necessary to establish its notability and that mere evidence that something exists is not synonymous with notability. Specifically:

• one of the sources (geeknative.com) [3] is a non-RS blog written by an individual guy,
• another source is to a page for insurance quotes in Texas that doesn't actually mention the product at all [4],
• one (Designers & Dragons) is essentially a compendium of every game ever created and while possibly factual doesn't contribute to notability in the same way we generally don't consider Publisher's Weekly reviews to do so (on the basis of the fact that they publish 10,000 per year),
• This leaves just two sources that contribute to WP:N, both of which are on the margins of RS: the volunteer-run e-fanzine rpggamer.com, and a listing on the "Diana Jones Award" website (the "Diana Jones Award" is one of dozens of tiny awards in the game industry. It is awarded by an anonymous committee of as few as one person. From YouTube footage of its "awards ceremony" it appears it's given out in the bar area of a TGI Friday's in front of a crowd of 20-30 people [5] by a guy who just stands up on a table in the restaurant to announce the winners (AFAIK the guy standing on the table is the awards committee); this is not the indicator of a significant award that could transmute significance to its recipients)

Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will AGF, Chet, but you are simply incorrect. Designers and Dragons, as you would know if you had read it, is not a compendium but a history, organized by publisher and discussing trends and milestones in roleplaying over 40 years. The discussion of Hillfolk is far from a TRIVIALMENTION but is actually a substantial discussion of the role of the game in the trends of the 2000s, as you would would know if you had read the mention (or even the WP article you have sent to AfD. (Plenty of games so have passing mentions in Designers & Dragons, but Hillfolk is not one of them).

Geeknative is a respected site written by a journalist who has written professionally on RPGs for The Scotsman and Enworld, and is therefore a perfect example of the kind of self-published source that is in fact reliable.

Le Maraudeur is a professionally-published game magazine in French which offers an INDEPENDENT, multi-page review of Hilkfolk, which you did not mention, for some reason.

I have fixed the link for the Indie RPG awards.

And the Diana Jones award is given by a committee of (more than one) industry professionals, as you would know if you'd read the discussion in, you guessed it, Volume 4 of Designers and Dragons. So, based on your own count, Chet, we now have either four or five RS. Isn't it time to drop the stick? Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that Designers & Dragons is, sadly, not "a compendium of every game ever created"... too many times have I looked for games in there to add it as a source, and did not find them.  :( BOZ (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep on basis of Diana Jones award; it may not be the Spiel de Jahres, but it's a significant enough award that a recipient of it should meet minimal notability criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that the three RS I added today will help you sleep easy with your !vote, Simon. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this a) won an Indie RPG award and b) that this is being discounted as notable, which would be a mistake. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link for that, too. Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it sad that,thanks to my response to Chet's strategy of provocative posting, this may be my last AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The source for that Diana Jones award states The games in Hillfolk, created by some of the finest designers working today (as well as, it must be admitted, some members of the Diana Jones Award Committee). --Imminent77 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation. It seems to be an issue that the source is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Chetsford (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, User:Imminent77: what source are you citing? Nvm; found the link in the article; I was looking in the discussion here.

I know NOTINHERITED and all that, but since the game includes settings by a long list of giants in the industry, and since we don't need the DJA to meet WPN and NBOOK, I think if anything the status of the book as a kind of compilation album of industry greats enhances its status, frankly. The DJA is just icing. Newimpartial (talk)

Meh weak keep The Diane Jones award is notable but, as someone with a good deal of expertise in the RPG area and publishing, the game itself isn't particular notable inside that industry so it's not particularly so outside. It doesn't get a lot of press inside the industry. If we went by the WP:BAND band notability criteria as an example (bear with me), it has a notable author but even for bands it requires two independently notable members. I'm honestly on the fence on this one, it's far from a big name RPG line. I also agreed with Chetsford's comment on Designers and Dragons. Yes Designers and Dragons is a notable work. Yes it's a reliable source to source information. However I'd say it's not a source to claim the actual notability of a subject unless the book makes specific notability claims. Having just reread the section on Hillfolk, I agree there's nothing there to denote actual notability other than Shannon choose to write about it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? In what sense does "The resulting game is very literary, focusing on themes, storybeats, and webs of relationships. It’s also the first Laws game that feels like it was directly influenced by the indie community ... When you put together those elements you have a pretty good overview of indie game mechanics in the ’00s. The most shocking aspect of Hillfolk (for traditional roleplayers at least) is the fact that it downplays what it calls “procedural” scenes, ..." (which is just the nub of the reference, not the whole discussion), placed in the major historical document of its field, not suggest Notability? All we need for NBOOK is two or three reviews, which we already have; given the pressures of space Applecline faced, his discussion of Hillfolk is at least worth a review. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The product reviews contain significant coverage which seems to be independent of the publisher. While the Dana Jones Award does not, in itself, establish notability it does give a solid marker for significance ie it shows that the reviews are likely not just 'we have to find some game to discuss in this issue' and greatly decreases the likelihood that the reviews are the result of native advertising or a publisher's PR campaign. The material that exists in the article is not, in my opinion, quite enough to demonstrate notability but, I think it likely that sufficient sources exist to get it past GNG. Jbh ^Talk 13:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Won prominent industry award. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Winning the Diana Jones Award is no small feat. Agree with GRuban. Z359q (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW applies. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 21:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Castillo[edit]

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

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

Violates Wikipedia:Verifiability as almost the entire article is unsourced. Also violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as there appears to be editorial bias and non-encyclopedic tone spread throughout the article in its entirety. Finally, the article is in violation of Wikipedia:No original research as this appears to have been told in a story format instead of an encyclopedia format without any sources which would indicate some original research. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, there are problems aplenty with neutrality and sources, and it indeed strikes me as original research as well. Yet the subject itself is notable per WP:MUSICBIO criteria #6. The unsourced/unreliable stuff should be excised, but there are obituaries in Billboard and Rolling Stone so an acceptable article could be sourced to those. I think the solution is to first try to fix the article rather than delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: lots of OR in the article that needs to go, but the subject is notable and there are enough sources to be able to create a decent article about him – there's also this article from Ultimate Classic Rock [6] and he's even had a documentary film made about his life which has played at international film festivals [7]. Richard3120 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Someone needs to do work on it because those templates have been there for almost a decade. The lack of action is why I nominated this for deletion. Either someone needs to work on it and fix the major violations of policy or it needs deleted. The current article is unacceptable and to be honest I don't know how this is considered B class with the lack of in text references.Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Figfires, that's a fair point about the B-class rating - it was done eleven years ago by Wizardman and maybe it's because in those days Wikipedia's rating standards were lower... I just wonder out of interest if he would rate it B-class now. If no-one else beats me to it I'll try and remove the OR next week and add some sources. Richard3120 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Figfires "Someone needs to do work on it because those templates have been there for almost a decade" - couldn't agree more, but Wikipedia is chock full of that sort of thing and deleting an article because it's crap is not policy and would probably not gain consensus to be one, however worthwhile the argument is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since Castillo is notable, but his page needs a lot of work. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of sources - and he's worked with the Prince of Fucking Darkness. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a classic case of WP:NEXIST, as the lack of sources currently in an article is not proof that the subject is non-notable; it's just proof that nobody added them yet. A WP:BEFORE search by the nominator would have easily revealed the sources located by the other voters above, indicating that the article needs to be cleaned up and improved, not deleted. Per WP:NEGLECT you don't have to wait for someone else to fix it then condemn it when they don't. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shayda Award[edit]

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

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

Non-notable award.No non-trivial coverage (other than mere mentions of recipients, when they confer it) about the award. ∯WBG^converse 14:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Award is notable and independent of subjects they are conferred. It is awarded by the Indian National Theatre. This award is covered by Trivedi, Ramesh. M. (2005) Gujarati Sahityano Itihaas. (History of Gujarati Literature). Ahmedabad: Adarsh Prakashan as referenced in the article which is book of history of literature (independent, non-trivial source). This award is also covered by several Gujarati sources but English references are scant because it is Gujarati literature award. -Nizil (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited.We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.News-tickers about a conferral in three-four lines or scant mentions in a book hardly passes that. Please provide sources, accordingly.......∯WBG^converse 04:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah: FYI Gujarati sources are fine. Sources do not have to be in English. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Indian National Theatre. I don't think the award itself merits a full article at this point because of the lack of notability (and apologies, but I can't really do a WP:BEFORE in Gujarati and claim to be able to understand it). That being said, if it is awarded by Indian National Theatre, which is for now can be presumed to be a notable subject unless it is challenged, surely it could be mentioned there and anything considered relevant could be brought over as an alternative to deletion. Then, if sources come to light and detailed notability worthy of an article's worth of content is established, an article could be recreated. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malak Zmarak Khan Mandokhail[edit]

Malak Zmarak Khan Mandokhail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:POLITICIAN and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Especially for a living person, we need some indepth sources before we write an article. There aren't any here. --GRuban (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV, he is a budding politician, nothing done so far is notable fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Even the BIO of his father appears to fail WP:NPOLITICIAN but I am not too sure due to his membership in Jirga of unknown importance.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. editor request DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hassan Sherani[edit]

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

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

This subject was not elected to Provincial Assembly of the Balochistan, this fails to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources and therefore does not appear to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I relied on these three sources (which all say he was the winner) when I created the article.[8],[9], [10] Recount might have changed the result as it was a small margin! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Election Commission has issued victory notification for Sardar Babar Khan Musakhel. --Saqib (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SheriffIsInTown: Since the creation was based on an incorrect premise, might I suggest you and Saqib save everyone time and trouble by first tagging the article with WP:CSD#G7, and then closing this AfD when the page is deleted? Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems a rough consensus (post filtering out partial unsuited justifications) that the accident was of sufficient scale and provoked sufficient national reaction to warrant retention. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Kiryandongo bus accident[edit]

2018 Kiryandongo bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply - no evidence of any lasting notability here. GiantSnowman 15:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks a lot like WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Basically everything on this subject is simply news reporting, but I concur there is nothing to establish notability other than it's a news event. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep - This article is poorly written and it needs re-editing. It is however notable just as 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire and 1999 Deutschlandsberg bus crash. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that the other two are notable as well per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; they appear to have the same NOTNEWS issue as I look over them. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am inclined to agree with Red Phoenix ^talk. Whilst the above mentioned accidents are newsworthy, serious and saddening, they are not necessarily notable according as per WP:NOTNEWS. An example of notable, in my opinion, would be if the bus crash was the worst in the country's history, or the accident resulted in the greatest loss of life through vehicular accident in the country's history. This is not an attempt to in any way diminish the seriousness of the event or to offend anyone involved, but it must be appreciated that there are millions of accidents which result in the loss of life every day and the vast majority are not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The news outlets do the job of covering the ones that Wikipedia cannot. ThePastoral (talk)
• Keep. I think the fact that the President of Uganda declared three days of mourning shows that this was an event of national significance and it has been covered in the international press (WP:EVENTCRIT#2). It's not just one of many daily accidents. If we had an article about Gaagaa Buses I might have suggested merging there and adding detail on their subsequent license revocation, which itself resulted resulted in strike threats, but we don't. Merging to Kiryandongo would overwhelm that article, so: keep, with no prejudice against a later merge. › Mortee _talk 07:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this has achieved the level of coverage required for WP:NEVENT. Another example of a recent, similar accident is the Humboldt Broncos bus crash. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Mortee, since it did receive international coverage from multiple sources which is WP:EVENTCRIT#2. Also would be happy to merge to a Gagaa Bus article if there were one - I did a search, and the company shows up in multiple crash articles from Uganda (most of which didn't achieve this level of international coverage). --GRuban (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the international coverage it has recieved and per the fact the country is or had 3 days of mourning ... –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can we for one moment imagine that if 22 people died in a road accident in Britain or America we'd even be at AfD? Of course it's notable. And a clear case of WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven R. Bangerter[edit]

Steven R. Bangerter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Source searches for independent reliable sources are not providing any significant coverage, just passing mentions. Some primary sources are found, but those are not usable to establish notability. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any additional secondary sources, so perhaps deletion is appropriate here.Dig _deeper ^talk 14:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All I could find is a profile at his law firm which is not independent. No significant in depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Also could not find any sources that would support any form of notability. Finnishela (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found one indepth source that has been reprinted in another place,[11][12] but it is only one, also though theoretically independent, practically it is a hagiography. --GRuban (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Before considering a new nomination, check whether a merger to 2014–15 North American winter can be done instead. SoWhy 14:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015 North American cold wave[edit]

February 2015 North American cold wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports and occasional temperature records. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 10:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western United States freeze: N Deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2014 North American cold wave: No consensus; overlaps November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter, potential to merge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Express: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 European cold wave (2nd nomination): Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 North American cold wave: No consensus; suggested merge to 2017–18 North American winter

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose for all – absolutely no reason to even consider this and the others for deletion. They describe historic weather events that caused a lot of issues in the US, and both this cold wave and the November one garnered a lot of headlines in the news, especially when the very snowy pattern that each caused. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose - Major weather event that affected millions, with significant news coverage. The article should be improved and expanded, but outright deletion would rob Wikipedia of information on these specific events (the same could be said for several of the other nominated articles as well). LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article sources show several "coldest month in history" from Toronto to Montreal to Rochester. That's sufficiently notable. We absolutely do write articles about records, and it's pretty clear these records affected more people than gold medals in luge or broad jump. --GRuban (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Broke records, contributed to deadly events, and has affected people. Satisfies GNG. AmericanAir88 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article, but opinion is evenly divided on whether the topic requires a standalone article. This latter question is better suited to a merge discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 North American cold wave[edit]

2017–18 North American cold wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports and occasional temperature records. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 10:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western United States freeze: N Deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2014 North American cold wave: No consensus; overlaps November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter, potential to merge
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Express: Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 European cold wave (2nd nomination): Y Kept
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 North American cold wave: No consensus; suggested merge to 2017–18 North American winter

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose for all – absolutely no reason to even consider this and the others for deletion. This particular event caused one of the coldest starts to January in North America since at least 2014. If you’re so picky about wanting to delete this then I guess Early 2014 North American cold wave should be deleted as well by all chances.. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - Article is well referenced. If this article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to 2017–18 North American winter, or another suitable target. @MarioProtIV:, you might want to comment on each individual AFD submission. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years, and broken weather records are quite frequent. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article is well-referenced and had significant impacts across the Eastern US. Multiple records were broken and millions of people were affected by this event; it's definitely notable enough to have an article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2017–18 North American winter, we should be focusing on cold waves that had widespread impacts such as Early 2014 North American cold wave. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed we had an article for each winter season. This looks like a great merge target indeed. I would support merge rather than deletion. — JFG ^talk 07:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG and set many records. James500 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. Multiple records are notable. Yes, records tend to be broken every few years, but such is the fate of records, Olympic records for example, we still write about them when they are broken. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (to suggested Winter target). I am unclear whether this would satisfy GNG, and in any case, I believe it would be an unwarranted content fork (just because it might be capable of being self-standing, doesn't mean it should). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• CEASE MERGING FOR NOW - as the discussion has been reopened, the in-progress merges should cease for now. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You Matter 100Percent[edit]

You Matter 100Percent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't believe this organisation meets WP:NORG. Searching for "You Matter 100Percent" yields nothing but the organisation's website and searching for "You Matter" and "U Jin Jo", the organisation's founder, is no better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As nom writes, I also searched for coverage and could not find any. The organization's own press page, https://www.youmatter100percent.org/articles only contains press about bullying in general, I couldn't find its name in any of them. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Search fails to find WP:SIGCOV of this specific organization, so WP:GNG not met. Additionally, it seems like an effort to promote the founder, whose individual page was previously deleted at AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VJ Aarthi Ganesh[edit]

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

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. Created by a single-purpose account who appears to have a close connection with the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Might be recreated if Ganesh gains notability after the remake of Mohini is released. wumbolo ^^^ 16:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Fails WP:NACTOR for now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Corasani[edit]

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

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

This actor lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*very, very weak keep WP:NACTOR.1. reads: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", he has had a few roles, apparently playing "the Muslim guy", mostly in minor roles in minor films and in a n episode of minor TV series. it may be just enough to squeak by. And, a non policy-based argument, our readers like to look actors up and expect them to be here. He gets a a fair number page hits. I think we should strive to be user friendly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the key point of WP:NACTOR.1. is "...significant roles in multiple...". I can accept that his role in The 15:17 to Paris is significant, he plays the villain. But all his other roles seem very minor, bit parts in films and single episodes of tv shows. I also can't find indepth articles about him. WP:TOOSOON --GRuban (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete User:GRuban persuades me. There is not enough SECONDARY to support WP:BASIC, and the roles seem to be very minor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Java Champions[edit]

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

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

Article about a non-notable circle-self-promotion initiative. damiens.rf 17:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't see any indepth reliable source coverage outside Oracle. There are bloggers very proud of becoming Java Champions, but they're hardly independent either. --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This deletion is premature as we were just in the process of updating this article to address the concerns expressed. As for the question of independence, as a group, Java Champions are completely independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.78.123 (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and GRuban's rationales. Nothing outside of the close community of Java developers.--1l2l3k (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fayrouz Saad[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL. She ran in a congressional primary and lost, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, this page should be redirected to the main election page. There is coverage of her campaign, but she isn't independently notable and we don't typically (or didn't used to) host candidate bios until such time that those candidates became elected officials. Marquardtika (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete losing candidate in a primary election. Previous career was WP:MILL for a political operative. Quite a lot of identity-related coverage of her campaign, but, still, we don't keep losing candidates with no notability prior to or apart form the campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the in-depth and even international coverage clearly was not just about the campaign but about her as a female Muslim politician, daughter of immigrants, and her unconventional positions. Omikroergosum (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if Fayrouz had won the primary that would not have made her notable. Loosing the primary makes her clearly not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we have decided that passing coverage at election time does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course candidates for the Congress who have received significant and in this case even international press coverage are automatically notable. And she had in-depth news coverage already a year before the primaries, very strange to call that "passing coverage at election time". Primary notability criterion is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Omikroergosum (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The references including The Independent and Spiegel show that she passes WP:GNG. Looking around, there is more, e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/muslims-running-for-office-2018-travel-ban-trump/index.html http://www.arabnews.com/tags/fayrouz-saad http://www.globaldetroit.com/detroits-fayrouz-saad-and-family-recognized-by-president-obama/ The latter, in particular, is not related to the Muslim Wave campaign. Ross-c (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Ross-c, and (the article creator,) User:Omikroergosum, appear to be misunderstand the policy, WP:POL, as verified by WP:POLOUTCOMES and by many, many outcomes that can be viewed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive, is interpreted ot mean that a candidate has had WP:SIGCOV predating and apart from the candidacy. It is often the case that the individual has not had a Wikipedia page before deciding to run for office, but the page has to be validated by discovering preexisting SIGCOV or finding that the individual passes the standards in some category, such as WP:JOURNALIST. The exceptions are in instances of truly extraordinary coverage during the campaign. A recent example is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In this case, however, pre-candidacy WP:SIGCOVcoverage does not exist, what does exist is coverage of Fayrouz Saad's candidacy as part of a wave of Muslim-Americans running in the recent Democratic Party primary, where she placed fourth. It is not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not basing my Keep vote on WP:POL, I'm basing it on WP:BASIC. If a person satisfies WP:BASIC then there is no need to satisfy specific requirements such as WP:POL. Hence I think E.M.Gregory's comment misses the point.Ross-c (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are both referring to the guideline WP:NPOL instead of WP:POL. I agree with Ross-c that you can meet either one to justify inclusion. NPOL itself states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

which as shown by many of the cited sources this BLP subject clearly does meet. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided. I expanded the original stub and added the sections on the 2018 campaign etc. But since Saad has lost the election I don't know whether it meets the notability criteria. I have rewritten it now with some feedback I got from my wikiedu instructors. I saw that Krish Vighnaraja who has a wikipedia entry is somewhat similar to Saad. I defer to the better judgement of those who know wikipedia content more than I do. Thanks. GDevi17745 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)GDevi17745[reply]

Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah page should probably also be taken to AfD. Lost the primary election, and while she has held responsible jobs, I ran a quick search and failed to find pre-campaign coverage of her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article does meet WP:GNG and does not violate WP:ISNOT. There is significant coverage (more than trivial mentions) from multiple independent reliable sources. Meeting our general notability guidelines justifies inclusion even if she lost the election as I don't think that the article could be categorized as WP:NOTNEWS or any other example of what Wikipedia is not. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that all of the sources are WP:MILL campaingn coverage, except those with the theme: "Fayrouz Saad could be America's first Muslim woman in Congress," "These Candidates Could Be America’s First Muslim Women In Congress." There were 5: Rashida Tlaib has a page because she was a state legislator, and she will almost certainly become the First Muslim Women In Congress. Ilhan Omar was already in the state legislature, and therefore has a page. Deedra Abboud and Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, like Saas, were non-notable political activists before the campaign. They do not have pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources (including the last two cited by Ross-c), I see that many are not just WP:ROUTINE coverage but do provide in depth coverage. In my opinion clearly enough to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I explain above, we have a sort of case law and precedent tradition at WP under which we delete candidates who lose party primaries for house seats. The exceptions are not people who generate coverage during the campaign, they are people who have done something else that has drawn SIGCOV played in a notable band, been a notable teenage fashion model - something. Please scroll up the page, read my post, and link through ot the old deletions discussions. It will give you a better feel for which losing candidates are kept, and why.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, we must follow the currently approved policy and guidelines. WP:POLOUTCOMES is neither, it just points out that a candidate that looses an election does not have inherent notability, but I don't think that it means that we could ignore that it passes WP:GNG and that it does not violate WP:ISNOT. There are many guidelines on notability for different kinds of subjects, but they are all complementary to GNG if either one is met, it warrants the inclusion of the subject. For primary candidates who loose elections to be automatically excluded even if they have in-depth coverage from multiple independent RS I feel that it would need to fall as, or we would need to have it added as a criteria to the list of what Wikipedia is not.

Also please notice that most of the lead does not make reference to the failed candidacy that was mentioned only on the last sentence. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also please notice that she was quoted by a Spanish source as director of Detroit's Office of Immigrant Affairs (see here) with no mention to her candidacy, and that is not the only international coverage. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She drew little or no coverage during her the years she worked in non-elective political jobs; never held a major job; was never profiled by a news organization; and got no INDEPTH coverage before she ran in a primary election. A Muslim woman running for Congress was not a first - there were, as I write above, FOUR such candidates this year. But she lost. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Sonneborn. A spate of identity- driven (youngest, or Muslim woman) does not make a losing candidate in a Party primary notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @E.M.Gregory: I am sorry, but I have to disagree. Please refer to WP:WHATABOUTX. Her notability does not come from being a loosing candidate. The subject did receive significant coverage before running for the election. Examples from 2016: An Hour with Fayrouz Saad, Remarks by the President at Eid Reception, Detroit’s Fayrouz Saad and Family Recognized by President Obama. In any case she has also received non-routine coverage from multiple reliable sources (some of them international like The Independent, Spiegel, Al Jazeera, La Vanguardia, etc. ) which does count towards WP:GNG. The article itself is not centered on the fact that the subject did run for Congress and the fact that she failed does not invalidate the significant coverage beyond routine mentions therefore it clearly meets WP:GNG and since it does not violate WP:ISNOT I do not think that not been elected is a valid reason for deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON for this failed candidate and ethnic activist who has held minor and/or local politics related jobs appointments. She has been building a resume, and has had the local coverage cited above by Crystallizedcarbon in local Detroit media, (Hour Detroit). In addition, the 3 sources cited above include a local acrivist organization, Global Detroit: Mobilizing Detroit's Immigrnat Population, and on the White House website when she was part of a group invited to the White House, administrations do this sort of ethno-religious recognition events. Beyond that, her candidacy garnered some coverage in Wave-of-Muslim-congressional-candidacies in the primary elections. This is WP:MILL primary season stuff. She finished 4th in the primary. She may well have a future in politics, but we don't keep failed candidates with this sort of ROUTINE coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not routine for candidates to receive international coverage and the subject has. What is your definition of routine coverage? This international in-depth coverage from The Independent: ayrouz Saad could be America's first Muslim woman in Congress per WP:ROUTINE it's clearly to me that this is not just routine coverage, It is at an international level and it does not just mention the name as been a candidate, it is a very in-depth and long article about the subject, and clearly meets WP:SIGCOV:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The same applies to this article in German from Der Spiegel: Und diese Frau will Donald Trump besiegen? as well as others form other countries mentioned above and many at the national level. Again significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources is all that is needed to meet WP:GNG. The fact that some or most of that coverage may have been sparked by her failed candidacy is not a relevant factor towards meeting the guideline, and since she is also known, as shown in the article, for other events in her career (for example quoted by a Spanish source as director of Detroit's Office of Immigrant Affairs without any mention to her candidacy) it is clearly not a case of WP:NOTNEWS. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just want to add that while I was writing the Saad article for my wikiedu class, I called the Detroit Mayor's Immigrant Affairs Office and learned quite a bit about Saad's work there. However, this information was given to me by a staff of the office and I cannot quote myself in the article. There is no mainstream or international coverage about much of her work in the Mayor's office. So I have not included any of it in the article. It did make something very clear to me, however: Muslim women in politics in our country do not receive much interest and coverage by mainstream media. Notability for them has additional layers of constraints. It will be very hard for Saad to have much recognition for her public work unless she wins a major office. Thanks much.GDevi17745 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)GDevi17745[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Deasy[edit]

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

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

PROD deleted with reasoning "previously deleted by PROD - take to WP:AFD please" ... player has never appeared in a WP:FPL, as all of his career appearances came in the League of Ireland First Division. Also fails WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG (needs more sources). SportingFlyer talk 06:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not much coverage, and not in fully professional league. Yet. --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY. Spleodrach (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Changes proposed by Uanfala may go forward. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banjari[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBUILD/WP:NCORP. No sources. » Shadowowl | talk 14:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is an article about a deity, so neither NBUILD nor NCORP seem to have much relevance here. – Uanfala (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: NBUILD/NCORP doesn't apply on temples? » Shadowowl | talk 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. But the article is not about a temple. Its first two sentences are: Banjari is one of the popular Hindu deity in Orissa. There are many Banjari temples present in Western and Southern part of Orissa.. – Uanfala (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. It is a failed attempt to create a disambiguation page. » Shadowowl | talk 20:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The articles has oscillated in its history between the ethnic group and the deity, and the current version clobbers the two together. The ethnic group appears to be the same as the Banjara, so it appears best to restrict the current article to be about the deity, then move it to Banjari (deity) and make Banjari a disambiguation page (with the addition of an entry for the language). There's no prejudice to the article getting renominated, provided the notability of the deity is challenged. I'm not in the business of evaluating the notability of deities, but a web search reveals plenty of results about various temples dedicated to it, so I'm not particularly worried about having such an article in mainspace (despite its poor present shape). – Uanfala (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the speedy keep; this should be a DAB page. The page probably needs a hist-split for the deity. [13] is a reference for the existence of a Banjari deity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments made by Uanfala Accesscrawl (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per arguments above and failed WP:BEFORE. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bishop (artist)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War Kings[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect to Ngong Ping 360. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nei Lak Shan Angle Station[edit]

Nei Lak Shan Angle Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

Airport Island Angle Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

As I understand it, these "angle stations" are just a part of the infrastructure of the Ngong Ping 360 gondola, and aren't really "stations" because passengers cannot normally board or alight. They probably fail the GNG since much of the news coverage which mentions them is about the gondola's operational issues. There is basically nothing to merge. Jc86035 (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I created the stubs here at English Wikipedia because of the Chinese Wikipedia articles: zh:彌勒山轉向站 (Nei Lak Shan Angle Station) and zh:機場島轉向站 (Airport Island Angle Station). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Another Believer: Personally, I think the Chinese Wikipedia has too many articles about Hong Kong and probably not enough articles about everything else. Almost every bus route in Hong Kong gets its own article, as do about one thousand streets and roads, even though most of their articles would be deleted on sight on the English Wikipedia for not establishing notability. Jc86035 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect this and Airport Island Angle Station to Ngong Ping 360. I don't think there's enough notability for either angle station to have a standalone article, but they are prominent features on the cable car line and are therefore rightly described in the Ngong Ping 360 article. Redirecting will allow the keyword to be indexed and the reader brought to a page with more context about these angle stations. Deryck C. 13:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not really completed a notability assessment, but I agree with redirecting over deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:ATD and WP:R these pages should not be deleted because they could be redirected to Ngong Ping 360, the line of which these stations form part. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Not notable by itself, but a list of stations would still be useful. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as explained above. The content in the article is already present in Ngong Ping 360.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Also per consensus, moved to Asmodee. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodée Éditions[edit]

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

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

Delete No indications of notability, references are all based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. No references can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I'm thinking that at minimum, Forbes, ICv2, and Polygon count as reliable sources, but no idea about the rest. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles by Forbes contributors - versus staff - have been described on several occasions as unreliable in community discussions (as indexed here). I'll reserve judgment on the other two. Chetsford (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite. We happen to have an article about that contributor. David M. Ewalt. It says "deputy editor of special projects at Forbes". --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment this is literally the worst BEFORE I've ever seen. Chet, you are out of the dog house! Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More formally Keep - just click on the French link from the article, and look at the sources there. No, the French article is not really better than ours, and yes, there are many citations of the company website, but there are also many journalistic cites from independent RS in French. Clear pass of GNG and NCORP. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, too many sources that are just announcements, and that doesn't help, but there are definitely existing sources there and more I can find that are non-first-party/non-primary that at least outline the basic history of the company. And while I would not want to implore a concept of upwards inherited notability, those sources coupled with the number of notable board games under their roof make having at least a landing page to summarize the basics of the company as reported from third-party sources makes sense. --Masem (t) 17:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I am french, and it's a well-known Role-playing game editor in France. More specifically, that source in Le Monde says: Funded in 1995 by a few excited people led by Marc Nunès, the company has just arrived, less than twenty years later, to the first place of tabletop games and pokemon type cards in France. This one from Le Figaro says it's the european leader of board games. Both are more than enough to make the article pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are a combination of broken links, press releases, incidental mentions, and blogs. A standard (Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, JSTOR) BEFORE fails to find anything further. Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Asmodee is perhaps the second largest board game company in the world now. Publishers of most non-traditional family board games in the world including Settlers of Catan, Pandemic, Ticket to Ride, Arkham Horror and many others. I'll see what sources I can dig up. This AfD feels like it didn't follow WP:BEFORE. Canterbury Tail talk 18:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment thinking further on this I think some of the confusion may be surrounding the name. I can't find any evidence that the company goes by the name Asmodée Éditions any longer. All references I can find, including their own website, indicates they are just called Asmodee these days. This may help with locating reliable sources as no one refers to them as Asmodée Éditions including themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 00:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Asmodee is perhaps the second largest board game company in the world I find it hard to believe "Asmodee" is bigger than Hasbro, Ravensburger, etc. etc. Chetsford (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Due to Asmodee's purchase by PAI partners for about 1.2B euros, annual revenues given around 150-400 million euros. (Hasbro is $5B).This is because Asmodee has bought out a huge # of publishers over the last 10 years. --Masem (t) 17:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So yes looks like I was wrong on the 2nd biggest. It appears (from my own original research) to be the 3rd biggest (by a hair). No one is remotely close to Hasbro, but Asmodee had a turnover of €442m ^[2] last year compared to Ravensburger's €447m. ^[3] Making it only fractionally smaller than Ravensburger at that point, and probably larger by now since they've acquired more this year. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the French version has more sources that we can pull from (I've tried to do that already). --Masem (t) 17:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Asmodee per WP:COMMONNAME. Also keep per sources and size. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per coverage by Forbes, Reuters, Ars Technica... sheesh. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep there is coverage in hundreds of reliable, secondary sources, as a ten second Google search easily reveals. As per User:Hobit, I also support a rename of the article to simply Asmodee. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete; a merger with Hamidreza Jalaeipour may be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour[edit]

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

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

No evidence for notability . He is apparently an individual foreign student in the US caught up, like so many others, in the current immigration policy . The policy here is ONEEVENT. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Hamidreza Jalaeipour, his father, who is prominent in Iran. It's clear, from the three news articles currently cited, that Mohammad Reza Jalaeipour has been arrested and detained several times by the Iranian authorities over the last 8 years, but I'm not sure that is enough information about him to warrant a standalone article. Sionk (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has independent coverage in reliable sources. Some references were added. The sources in Persian are much more. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*:Delete (signed) Dogs curiosity ^{talk to me!} 10:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)striking sock comment. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has enough coverage in independent sources. Passes WP:GNG.

Knightrises10 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per User:Sionk - makes sense. Redditaddict_6_9 01:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm actually going to have to go with Keep here, but a bit weakly. There are a lot of independent sources on the page that significantly cover the topic, so I'd say it passes WP:GNG. I don't think this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT either, as there is coverage of several different events concerning Jalaeipour in the sources. I will say that if the article can't be kept, I support merging some of the more important information in this article into the Hamidreza Jalaeipour article, and redirecting this there.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per User:Sionk.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are enough sources about him moreover he had first 1 rank in Iranian University Entrance Exam and his article in fawiki was also kept Mardetanha (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though the article doesn't really reflect the sources. The article is about him being a student and activist, while the sources are about him being regularly arrested from 2009 through 2017. That's continued international coverage; though presumably not for any topic he would prefer to be known for. --GRuban (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Operation Tight Screw[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. The Article is "media speculation" about a supposedly military operation in 2012 that failed to get the necessary coverage it needs to pass WP:GNG other than news hit. Army denies any such operation.[14] The keep vote in the last 3 AfD were too optimistic with the news hits and focussed on WP:FUTURE and Nominator issues. But come 2018 and even after 6 years since last Afd was closed there is no coverage or content other than passing mentions to merit an article. (Afd1 was closed as No consensus and Afd2 and 3 were Non admin closures)--DBigXray 13:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Comment. I found some additional references. [15] [16] [17] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]