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 characters: T. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thorn (Marvel Comics)[edit]

Thorn (Marvel 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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia, and page is linked by five articles, out of which two are disambiguation pages and two are lists. Character is too minor to merge to a list article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: T. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - narrowly enough secondary info to justify an article, but wouldn't oppose a merge. Killer Moff (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: T. because there are other options rather than deleting good content. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the list. The comments from the creator and the sourced list entry qualify the character for inclusion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per others. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:06, 1 September 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Udayani Social Action Forum[edit]

Udayani Social Action Forum (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 The Banner talk 11:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Recent coverage underscores its prominence:

– Matters India: "The World Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) will confer the certificate of Merit Award on Udayani, a Jesuit-run social action center in Kolkata." (February 18, 2018)

– The Herald.

– Asia News. Jzsj (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first one maybe useable although I do not know the value of the award. The two others are the usual related sources and/or passing mentions. The Banner talk 14:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The CSR Award is run by one person who also likes to publish warnings about his past employees. It's a bogus award with no credibility.96.127.243.251 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another promotional article created from passing mentions cobbled together to create the semblance of notability. The article has been created on the premise that any source that mentions the four word phrase "Udayani Social Action Forum" is a good source, which entirely ignores the concept of independent, reliable in-depth reporting. For example, if you check the source titled " "India: Statement On West Bengal Tripartite Wage Agreement In Tea Industry - Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières", what you will find is at the end of the article there is a long list of over 40 signatories to the article (which is actually a political letter) that includes the Udanyi Social Action Forum:

*Shramajivi Samanvay Committee, West Bengal
*TUCI West Bengal State Committee
*Udayani Social Action Forum, West Bengal
*Uttar Bango Bon-Jon Shromojivi Manch, West Bengal
*Vadodara Kamdar Union, Gujarat

That source is therefore not independent, not published by a reliable publication, and not in-depth. After checking half the sources, and finding that are RS, I have to say delete. 96.127.243.251 (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- In principle, a church outreach programme that is larger than a single church should in principle be notable. The complaints of the anonymous IP amount to a complaint that one of the sources relates to being one of a number of people signing a report or petition. I agree that would not make them notable, but that does not affect the principle. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Peterkingiron, I'm a native in the state of their operation.Find me at-least two (even one??) sources, covering their activities significantly. ∯WBG^converse 09:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Mentions are weak when it comes to WP:INDEPTH. I agree with IP. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've added several references to the article that show the broad scope and coverage of its actions. Jzsj (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they show that the organisation is active and attends trainings. It adds nothing to their notability. The Banner talk 10:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait-Running a search in regional sources.∯WBG^converse 09:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Hmm.....This supposedly exists and has moderate amounts of financial transactions.The world-CSR-Award can be charitably described as spam and the same comments apply to the media-unit that reported it.Nothing in Bengali sources save one hit which is a two line clipping, devoted to them about theirs'organising a show.∯WBG^converse 09:45, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Harper[edit]

Curtis Harper (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:BLP1E, that event being his walking out of a recent fight. I see almost no other coverage; a 2015 interview describes him as "little-known". power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Also does not meet WP:NBOX.PRehse (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, agree about WP:BLP1E.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBOX....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet to establish WP:NBOX. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:45, 29 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. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, but that's not enough in the face of specific consensus to not redirect due to it being an unlikely search term -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Wilkinson bibliography[edit]

Alec Wilkinson bibliography (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)

As per WP:SPINOUT this page is not necessary for size reasons as the main article Alec Wilkinson is only 4k bytes WP:SIZERULE is a long way away from being met. The main article is quite possibly not notable either. This bibliography is not long enough to warrant a separate article. I have already removed the newspaper articles and essays that do not meet the goals of WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - absolutely not necessary to split this off from main article, and not a sensible search term/redirect either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with and redirect to Alec Wilkinson - there is no need for a separate article on this author's list of books. Vorbee (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in that article and was already a redirect but to be honest I can't see anyone looking specifically for this guy's bibliography so I think no real need for a redirect. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Alec Wilkinson. Not necessary to spin out. Not merge because the content is already there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• RetainKeep - the journal articles that I originally had in this bibliography (but which have been removed again by another editor) mean that it is not a one-for-one duplication of the Publications section of the main Alec Wilkinson page. I only created a separate bibliography because another editor removed the journal articles from the main page. Catch-22. Sunwin1960 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With rare exception, we don't include non-major works in these lists, given Wikipedia is not a CV. If it's not appropriate for the main article it's probably not appropriate for the bibliography. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As per WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY We include books and other entries such as articles in academic journals. The entries that were removed failed the goals so there is no catch 22 situation because they should never have been included in the first place. Catch 22 refers to a situation where there are contradictory rules, if there had been a rule that BIBLIOGRAPHY articles are allowed so long as there are more than 10 entries including essays and newspaper articles but a second rule that says essays and newspaper articles are not notable so are not allowed in lists then I would have agreed with you but this isn't the case. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you point to where exactly in WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY it says "we include books and other entries such as articles in academic journals?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I should have been clearer, I should have said as per the link in WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Goals. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not useful as a standalone article, and not worth a merge / redirect. All titles are nn. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 3 September 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Playground[edit]

Audio Playground (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a band whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not properly sourced. This claims charting hits in Billboard's Canadian Hot 100 and Dance charts, but the source being cited to support them isn't actually Billboard -- it's an unreliable WP:BADCHART provider called Alphacharts, which is not accepted as a notability-conferring chart on Wikipedia, and the chart positions completely fail right across the board to verify on the real Billboard site. And beyond the falsified charting data, there's not a single reference being cited here at all for anything else. As always, it's not what an article says that determines whether it qualifies for inclusion or not, it's how well the article references what it says as true, and this isn't even trying to do that at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BADCHART claim can be easily debunked. Here for example the number 8 position proof on U.S. Dance Chart for "Shadows" on August 21, 2010 chart https://www.billboard.com/music/audio-playground/chart-history/dance-electronic-digital-song-sales/song/661950 Let's take #39 position for "Famous" on Canadian Hot 100 It is justified here https://www.billboard.com/music/audio-playground/chart-history/canadian-hot-100/song/702591 How about the hit "Emergency"? It charted on Canadian Hot 100 reference here https://www.billboard.com/music/audio-playground/chart-history/canadian-hot-100/song/742132 Charting for "(A Little) Respect" at #77 in Canadian Hot 100 Here is the reference https://www.billboard.com/music/audio-playground/chart-history/canadian-hot-100/song/621072 Their number 1 hit "Hands Up in the Air" was not only number 1 on U.S. Dance Club Chart but also stayed 13 weeks on that chart https://www.billboard.com/music/audio-playground/chart-history/dance-club-play-songs/song/809839 Their hit You Never Know made it to #5 on U.S. Dance Chart and stayed 12 weeks on the chart https://www.billboard.com/music/audio-playground/chart-history/dance-club-play-songs/song/776737 werldwayd (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ihave now added all the positions one by one linking to Billbiard I have also added references from more sources including from Journal de Montréal, Montreal's biggest selling daily as in here https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2016/07/03/de-gros-noms-pour-audio-playground werldwayd (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why is it, then, that when I went to Billboard not an hour ago and typed "Audio Playground" in the exact same fucking search bar, exactly nothing turned up? Do you mean to claim that Billboard has some magical ability to only not work when I search for something, but work perfectly well for everybody else but me? And if those are true, then why aren't they in the article instead of Alphacharts, which most certainly is an inherently invalid badchart? Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the homework and now you have justification of each and every position linked to the exact Billboard page. Canadian Billboard 100 is very mainstream and the best indication for chart notability in Canada, though I admit U.S. Dance Club Songs and U.S. Dance/Electronic Digital Song are more specialized charts. "Hands Up in the Air" is a number 1 for them. Please do check all my links now added. Sorry for that. You may have a point about alphacharts and acharts, they may not be admissable, but they are almost always very accurate in their claims of positions and personally I find them helpful as this case clearly conveys. werldwayd (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Like the nominator, I also could not find them through the Billboard website. And yet the links by werldwayd (talk) are irrefutable. My guess is the Billboard search engine is not perfect and can't always be relied on. And, yes, the problems with the article are there with the sourcing and my independent googling couldn't find anything beyond the usual promotion and online download type stuff. Still, per the multiple chart appearances criteria, the subject is notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For nom's future reference, when checking to see if something charted on Billboard, do a Google search for the artist name, the words "Billboard" and "chart" and the Billboard charting positions should be the first result, ie "Audio Playground" Billboard chart. I have no magical ability. --Oakshade (talk) 20:23, 2 September 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raffi Boghosian[edit]

Raffi Boghosian (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)

not notable. Produces "a variety of shows" Interviews a variety of people. Has press credentials--listed as if that had been a elite membership. References are mainly his own broadcasts, along with some routine notices of very minor awards. DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per years of coverage in Arabic-language media, which you obviously have to look for (WP:BEFORE). Lots of videos I can't understand but I don't see how you can declare him non-notable. [1][2][3] —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go by Google translate, but the first of these is a press release the second is an award citation, the third is ha recording of himself. Only the 2nd is even potentially a RS; if I can assume you selected the est sources, then there isn't enough to show notability, DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: an unremarkable producer; sources offered above are insufficient for WP:ANYBIO. Created by Special:Contributions/Binx2smooth with few other contributions outside this topic, so COI-based editing is likely. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject's IMDB entry lists only miscellaneous crew for The Voice. He's also the Hollywood correspondent for Al Arabiya English, which explains the references to that publication. For the award, more needs to be done to establish the notability of the award itself. Is there significant coverage of the award? Please ping me so that I can actually vote if any of this is done. Ross-c (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

House of Love (Mumbai)[edit]

House of Love (Mumbai) (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, promo The Banner talk 21:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously a worthy organization in the real world. However, in the wikiworld it is not worthy of an article as I seriously cannot find a single reliable source when searching the web. This is another instance of "Jesu-spam", which the article creator should go ahead and endorse for deletion as it fails to meet GNG.96.127.244.27 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (in place of former Comment). I did find a more-than-passing mention for your consideration, from what seems to me an independent source here at MoneyLife, with attribution to N. Madhavan, that says in part: "In 1985, it gained national recognition. President Zail Singh presented Fr Placido Fonseca, director Snehasadan, the 1985 National Award for Child Welfare. Snehasadan now runs 16 homes for orphans and street children." This would be an improved reference for what is already in the article. If the inclusion of mention how money can be sent to assist in the effort vitiates the whole report, then you can skip this one.

And if the story of someone who spent 10 years at House of Love (Mumbai) - Sneha Sadan - has any place in the article, then this bit from a correspondent for Gulf New India might be used.Jzsj (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Jzsj (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Are you kidding me? You think a fund raising article is a reliable source? The Banner talk 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please give me more time to finish my contributions. You'll find some additions to my remarks in the above. Jzsj (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you save an edit, people can reply on it... The Banner talk 12:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so you have added a second fundraiser and a passing mention. The Banner talk 12:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. We should be looking for independent significant coverage from secondary sources (which should obviously be reliable). In this case none. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUD but the topic does meet notability guidelines, although not on a grand level just scrapes through. There is coverage in major Indian newspapers .It is a 52 year old organisation.Note it is mentioned as Sneha Sadan and I have not gone through the coverage in the local Marathi and Hindi languages.

• Of no fixed address: Mumbai’s street-dwellers are neither beggars nor destitute The Indian Express
• Child Abuse Survivor Shares his Mumbai Journey on Facebook NDTV
• A former Mumbai street child has beaten all odds to open the café of his dreams Scroll
• Mangalore Premier League gets off to grand start with Sri Lankan touch The Times of India
• Creating Wealth Through Strategic Hr And Entrepreneurship pg 191
• From Mumbai street kid to author, cafe owner Gulf News
• Once a street kid himself, this Andheri-based entrepreneur now wants to build a library cafe for poor children Daily News and Analysis
• They showed how to turn odds into evens Daily News and Analysis
• Art from the Heart Hindustan Times

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not one is an in-depth description of Sneha Sadan. And three times the same success story. The Banner talk 19:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• BOMBAY STREET CHILDREN SCAMPER TO FIND FUTURE New York Times
• Urban Children in Distress: Global Predicaments and Innovative Strategies pg 193-196
• Funny in Parts: The Diary of a Foreign Service Officer pg 250
• Outlook mentions it Outlook
• Child Exploitation and Abuse: A Global Phenomenon : the Report of the First Asian Conference on Child Exploitation & Abuse, Calcutta, India, 17-19, December 1990 pg 30-32
• Enfants des rues de Bombay - Snehasadan, la maison de l'amitié Book on Snehasadan.Pharaoh of the Wizards
• For Snehasadan girls, it's one happy homecoming Mumbai Mirror Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait-I think I have came across the subject in a few media-pieces.Will try to look for them, in the hope that my memory is not betraying me.....∯WBG^converse 11:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Nothing resembling to significant coverage in any source.No hits in Hindi either.How are this news-piece or this or this or this paid-promotion-piece helpful to establish the notability of Sneha Sadan? A street child of Sneha Sadan made it somewhat-big but how does that make SS notable? This has some mentions of the organization that can be exploited.Sheer insanity.Even if I take that the fund-donator is wiki-notable, all organisations to whom they donate funds does not inherit automatic-notability. This news-piece is a coverage from the events-section of the local edition of HT Times, which has zero relevance as to encyclopedic notability.Sigh......∯WBG^converse 14:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see numerous good sources in GBooks when searching as a single word: "Snehasadan".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:47, 2 September 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. A marginal case, but I think the arguments for deletion have been adequately addressed and there is consensus to keep the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Scholarship[edit]

Newcastle Scholarship (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:N and WP:NOT - it fails WP:GNG. This article is about a comparatively small prize at a private British school, Eton College. The sources provided are obscure, and generally mention it only in passing - usually they only write that some famous person happened to win it in their youth. The only text on it appears to be published by Eton, so is a primary source. These issues haven't been fixed for several years. The tables of winners truly are indiscriminate collections of information, and have not been kept up to date. Eton College has many prizes listed on its page already, and this one doesn't need to be separate. Knowto (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Seems to be a list more than an article too. WP:YELLOWPAGES could apply. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is the College's most prestigious prize, and for over a century until it changed form in 1976 it was considered the premier school prize examination in England for school students of the Classics (Greek and Latin language and literature) and Divinity. So, it's the most prestigious prize at the most famous and prestigious school in England (and one of the most famous in the world) and for many years was considered one of the top school prizes in the whole country. Sounds pretty notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:

• The present monetary value of the prize (something like £250?) is modest but was very considerable when first established in 1829. In any event, the prestige of the prize does not depend on its monetary value.
• The alleged obscurity of the cited sources is a matter of opinion; they are, I think, reliable. They tend to be of a biographical nature and naturally do not dwell on the prize at enormous length. Nevertheless, a number of notable winners of the prize have regarded it as a significant life event.
• The cited monograph was published by Eton but was written by a reputable independent academic, Dr David Butterfield (and it is in any event not necessary, in order to establish a matter's notability, to show that it is the primary subject of a published text).
• I'm not sure what is meant by describing the list of winners as an "indiscriminate" collection of information. It seems to me to be a collection of information that is focused, limited and relevant. Wikipedia contains many lists and the tables in this article do not appear to me to fall into any of the four categories expressly identified at WP:NOT.
• The Scholarship is generally acknowledged to be Eton's most prestigious prize (a fact not disproved by the existence of equally remunerative prizes in other fields). I expect that a published source for that proposition could be identified if necessary. (One sees here that the College itself lists the Newcastle first among all prizes awarded.)
• Google Books searches produce over 3,000 results for “Newcastle scholarship” Eton and over 1,700 results for “Newcastle scholar” Eton. The article is of potential value to readers of those books. And surely the number of hits is some indication of notability?
• The article has contributions from at least a dozen identified editors, who presumably all take an interest in the topic; it's not an obsessive individual's personal hobby-horse.

45ossington (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I add this by way of rebuttal of the charge that published sources mention the Newcastle only in passing? Miles Jebb's Patrick Shaw Stewart, An Edwardian Meteor (Dovecote Press, 2010) has this description of the contest between Patrick Shaw-Stewart and Ronald Knox:

"The Newcastle has been described by a subsequent victor as the Everest of Eton scholarships. Founded by the Duke of Newcastle in 1829, it consisted of ten papers, taken morning and afternoon over five days in late March. Most of these were in construing unseen Greek and Latin Prose, and composing Greek and Latin Verses. To these were added a general paper on Divinity, and detailed examinations on St Matthew's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in the original Greek. With few exceptions it had been won by Collegers, and in the previous year by Daniel MacMillan, with Ronald Knox as proxime accessit. It was generally expected that Knox would now get it, even though he was younger than several of the other contenders, and would be able to try for it again in the following year. The two examiners were Oxford or Cambridge Dons, though famously Mr Gladstone had once taken it upon himself to judge the Newcastle. Those sitting for it were cosseted and given the unique privilege of playing fives between the buttresses of College Chapel between their mental gymnastics. The result was published in The Times and the winner considered by many to be the cleverest boy in the country. The Scholarship was worth £50 for three years. Patrick could look forward to two further Newcastle contests, but decided to go all out for this one for a special reason. It was the convention that the Newcastle winner, if not already in Sixth Form, would be immediately promoted into it. In his case this would place him above Prior and secure for him the Captaincy of the School in 1906/7. It was indeed a mountainous task, and several of the aspirants were two years older than he was. But, encouraged by the Reynolds victory, he set forth to climb it, or rather, to dig into it – ‘to sap like a thousand devils.' He ploughed slowly and deliberately through the scriptural texts, reading every word of a book once begun, and refraining from annotating down the side, determined to rely on his memory. Although the Classical texts could not be prepared, he spent weeks studying the Birds of Aristophanes, without notes or cribs. The week of trial began. He rendered into English verse passages from Homer, Aeschylus and Aristophanes, and from Lucretius, Horace, Lucan and Martial; and into English prose passages from Thucydides, Aeschines and Plato, and from Cicero, Livius and Tacitus. He composed his Greek hexameters and iambics and his Latin hexameters, elegiacs and lyrics, from passages of English poetry. And he answered the technical questions relating to grammar and criticism in Classics and in Divinity. On 7 April the result was announced: Patrick had won. As Evelyn Waugh puts it in his biography of Ronald Knox: 'On hearing the result, Ronald sat down and read the Book of Job straight through; Shaw-Stewart gave up work for the next four years.'"

45ossington (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For information: I don't believe this is actually one of the sources listed. Hence my comment. Knowto (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, now addressed. 45ossington (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can be listed on Eton's page (without the lists of winners, most of whom are non-notable people), but not enough coverage, beyond trivial mentions, to have a page of its own. I don't think it's a notable award in itself.--Tacyarg (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete searches point to general scholarship information pertaining to various Newcastles such as the one in Australia or London. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is in order to respond briefly to your comment - and apologies if I am infringing Wikipedia etiquette, about which I am not so well informed as I should be. But I don't think your point can apply to the over 3,000 Google Book search results which I refer to above, as they include both the word "Eton" and the precise phrase "Newcastle scholarship". 45ossington (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to be a big deal about the older books, but it is mainly from the same sources, mostly biographies of the people involved, which of course will mention that they got the scholarship, or writeups about Eton in general. The question is how this would differ in impact like the Rhodes Scholarship or Fulbright scholarship whether it's more like a local valedictorian award. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strike my vote on this. I've seen more frivolous awards posted with less reliable sources. I do ask that the history of the prize be described away from the lead paragraph, and that the detailed lists either be sourced or scrubbed to list the names without the pre-nominals. The post-noms such as KS seem to be normal for the listing as shown in this 2010 prize summary: [4] The examiners and examiner topics should be removed as excessive detail, but with particular topics of note described in the history section. Supporting minor prizes like The Rosebery Prize (History); The Andrew Duncan Prize (2nd); The Martineau Prize (3rd) should be removed.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, saying the Newcastle Scholarship is "a comparatively small prize at a private British school" is like saying the Empire State Building is a small structure (well it doesn't even make the List of tallest structures article) in a US East coast city, these words do nothing to aid editors in discerning whether the scholarship is notable, ditto the words "many winners non-notable" - uh, no, it could be they just don't have wikiarticles yet (doen't matter as WP:NOTINHERITED), anyway at around 10th words Eton College may a bit too long to have more words added to it about this (see WP:LENGTH that suggests around 4th to 7th words for readability - some pruning/splitting of EtonC might be needed?), but with all this said agree that a cleanup could be desirable (eg. only list recipients that have standalones in article ("Recipients include .....", move rest to the talkpage awaiting their own article?). Coolabahapple (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• On balance, keep

The prize has enough prestige in the general academic world, beyond Eton, to be notable. The small monetary value is irrelevant.

If for no other reason than that many of the recipients are themselves notable, the list itself is worth keeping. We allow lists of players at minor football clubs and suchlike; surely this is more notable?

Obviously it is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

It is too long to move to the Eton College article, which is already rather long.

However, perhaps all the school postnominals should be deleted as they are not of sufficient general interest outside the Eton community.----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As the lister of this I still think delete. A lot of the support for this article seems to be coming from the fact that it is more somehow "prestigious" than other prizes. As the 2016 editor of The Spectrum (Eton's academic yearbook where one of the Newcastle essays is routinely published among other essays), and as someone who took this prize at Eton among several others, this prestigiousness is definitely subjective. I would in fact claim that other prizes are as prestigious, if not more. The Spectrum Editors frequently don't publish the Newcastle Classical prize if the essay isn't particularly good in comparison to other entries, or too long to reasonably edit/fit in. It doesn't have a particularly special status at Eton, and in recent years, the Huxley has had more entries and been more competitive—with Nobel Prize winners adjudicating more than once. Moreover, the old week-long brutal Newcastle prizes simply don't happen anymore. It's really not the Empire State building of Eton prizes, and it just won't get you into Oxford or Cambridge like it might have done in the 20th century; I know two people who won it and didn't. No-one at any university will have heard of the Newcastle unless they went to Eton or a similar public school. Therefore, if the Newcastle has any reason to be on Wikipedia, I believe it must be historical, not based on the significance or notability of this prize today. Knowto (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be impertinent of me to suggest that your perspective may have been distorted by excessive modesty on the part of a former winner, but I am struck by the apparent strength of your feeling that what is at worst a fairly harmless article should be deleted. I agree that not many today will have heard of the Newcastle; all the more reason for Wikipedia to furnish means for the enlightenment of those who come across published references to it. I also accept that the particular prestige of the prize (for Etonians) may have been more apparent in the past than it is now, but I am not inclined on this issue to allow the editorial judgments of recent editors of Spectrum (though I'm sure it's a valuable production) to outweigh the accumulated historical significance of some 150 years of published references. Your allusions to the distinction of recent judges of the Huxley Prize, and/or the vagaries of the Oxbridge admissions process, seem to me somewhat off-point. And would Wikipedia be a better place if it generally excluded articles about institutions that had declined in importance? 45ossington (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It possibly is a touch impertinent of you, but I'll explain anyway: my desire to delete this page is because I care about Eton and its prizes—which would make sense given I used to compile them all in a yearbook. I think that the somewhat elitist view propagated on this AfD page—which presents the Newcastle Scholarship as some incredibly hard and incredibly prestigious prize—is beyond inaccurate, it's actually slightly harmful to Eton. It wrongly makes Eton look outdated, obsessed with its own prizes and history, and focused mainly on (to quote the Newcastle page itself): "Classics (Greek and Latin language and literature) and Divinity (the Bible scriptures)." This perspective is exacerbated by the full list of winners the page includes, and I feel that it couldn't be further from the truth. It is also unfair to the other prizes, like the Huxley, Rosebery, or the new Hoberman Entrepreneurship prize, among countless others. These prizes are at least as competitive, but obviously don't merit an entire page because they're not a big deal outside of Eton—just like the Newcastle scholarship. This may not be the most Wikipedia-centric argument to delete a page, but the claim I'm making is that this page's existence presents a modern institution inaccurately and unfairly. The allusions to Oxbridge and judges were simply intended to show that this "most prestigious" line that is printed more than once (see the Eton College page and the Newcastle Scholarship page) is subjective, and has changed over time. And I maintain that the published references are mostly tangential, or not included on the Newcastle Scholarship page (though thank you for adding Miles Jebb). I have been able to find several of the others, and it's basically two words in a few of the seven cases. What I don't know is the extent of the Newcastle's historical relevance; if this can be proven to fulfill WP:GNG, it has a place on Wikipedia. However, the full lists of winners feel irrelevant to any historical relevance, and should surely be removed for a more concise list of notable winners? Knowto (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, due its long history at a notable institution. ---Asteuartw (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep there seems to be enough coverage of this and I don't think policies such as WP:YOUNGATH categorically exclude high-school competitions of this sort. The table of winners is excessive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:49, 29 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 keep. Withdrawing as nobody seems to agree there's a BLP concern. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine McCormick[edit]

Maxine McCormick (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)

A teenage who is a world champion in fly casting, apparently a niche sport. I'm not sure the coverage outweighs possible BLP concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: subject easily meets WP:GNG, and being the world champion—as well as the youngest world champion—in her sport meets WP:SPORTBASIC, even if it's not everyone's favorite sport. McCormick has received coverage from the San Francisco Chronicle to the New York Times and not just recently: 2016 and 2017 as well. She has been featured in American Angler magazine[5], and DUN Magazine, a publication geared towards women in fly-fishing. Nothing in this article violates WP:BLP (it's reliably sourced and non-contentious), and any problems with content can be fixed with simple editing. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a world champion, with considerable news coverage. Not a BLP problem as it's all info which is very public. PamD 10:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I don't think it matters if it's a minority sport - she is world champion and it is reliably sourced XyzSpaniel Talk Page 13:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: world champion with substantial newspaper coverage. Not sure what the nominator's BLP concerns are. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep she meets WP:BLP and WP:BASIC easily. She has had national coverage for years.Cbratbyrudd (talk) 13:38, 29 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth generation cyberattack[edit]

If you came here because https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/1031647567799623680, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fifth generation cyberattack (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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although this page seems like a little bit of marketing, I don't think it should be deleted. This term has been used by several other sources so I don't think we can accuse Checkpoint of creating this article to bolster their credibility. –——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This account has been created today, and has made few edits outside deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This doesn't really fit the General notability guideline in my opinion; the only sources I could find about this term are either Wikipedia mirrors, other company websites, or only have a trivial mention. It seems to be a term used by Checkpoint that has not entered general usage. -Sonicwave ^(talk) 18:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can not find any reliable sources for the notability of this term. I have taken the time to review all the references in the article, and this is the result:

• The lead paragraph has been "sourced" by an unrelated article. Diff 1
• The whole "Defining characteristics" section has been entirely made up per WP:SYNTH: None of these sources actually say anything about the article topic. Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5
• At this point, I have added an ((original research)) tag to the article. Diff 6
• There has been citation overkill (see this essay) with unreliable sources, press releases, marketing blog posts, YouTube interviews. Diff 7, Diff 8, Diff 9, Diff 10, Diff 11
• The sentence "Computer security experts generally describe cyberattacks in terms of five generations", previously the sentence with the most citations in the article, consequently turned out to be original research as well. Diff 12
• The last reference that said anything about the article topic turned out to be a login-walled source. Using Google Cache, I was able to access it. Below the source, I found the following notice about the source's author: "Rick Rogers [line break] Rogers is Regional Director for Africa at Check Point Software Limited" -- That's the same company that Cindyjwilson, the article creator, has declared to work for. Not a reliable source, and original research as well. Diff 13
• There are some reliable sources left, but they say nothing about the article topic and are just describing the general cybersecurity situation of the world.

The article, in its revised state, can sadly somehow be described like this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:SYNTH intended to establish one vendor's preferred neologism (WP:NEO). Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a marketing term with no clear meaning that's only used in marketing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are no articles detailing "generations of cyberattacks" prior to this supposed "fifth generations", which is a marketing term constructed by CheckPoint Security (the same company who created this wiki page). The article also makes unsubstantiated claims such as "Computer security experts generally describe cyberattacks in terms of five generations" despite there being no widespread use of such terminology outside of recent CheckPoint articles and op-eds. MalwareTechBlog (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Something between WP:OR and WP:NEO. The term itself and the whole notion of "generations" were apparently introduced/invented at Checkpoint. None of the sources support that it was used anywhere else than in their material, blogs and op-eds (If such sources did exist, I'm pretty sure they'd have added them by now). The sources that do exist only describe that attacks got more sophisticated over time. If "generations of cyberattacks" was actually a widely used concept there would be no lack of sources actually dealing with it, and they would go back for years. Averell (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, understanding that edits are needed. I'm the original author, let me make a few points.
  • It is well understood in the industry that significant changes have occurred in recent years. In particular, nearly all coverage of WannaCry and NotPetya characterized them as significantly different from previous attacks. It's true that the article title I chose reflects terminology used by my employer; but I don't know a better term to describe the current state of things.
  • When I came to Wikipedia, the definition of Cyberattack was essentially frozen at 2010. I feel that was a great disservice to Wikipedia's readers. Things have changed a great deal in 8 years.
  • I made every effort to engage other Wikipedia editors for input. The result may not be perfect, but I object to the characterization of my actions (beginning, as far as I can tell, with this tweet) as being "gross." I discussed the article with Kvng (talk · contribs) prior to publishing, and have also discussed with Jytdog (talk · contribs) and zchrykng (talk · contribs). My aim has always been to work in support of the Wikipedia community, not to subvert it. There's no need to make this personal, I feel it is beneath the Wikipedia community to do so.
  • One specific place where I acknowledge my version was problematic: as I've learned more about Wikipedia and about the source, I see I should not have included the Business Day article; it's not up to the WP:RS standard. There are, however, other sources that are independent of my employer that discuss the 5 generations -- some with reference to our company, and some without. It's been my belief that when an established, independent source covers a concept, that would help confer notability -- whether or not they quote my colleagues.
  • I think it's important to consider what Wikipedia's readers are seeking. The page views for this article have increased since I first submitted it, and have actually surpassed those for the main cyberattack article. The initial spike preceded the tweet I linked above, and I have made no special effort to promote the article -- so I think this demonst\es there's interest in the topic out there. See pageview results.
• I can see it's possible this article will be deleted, but I hope others in the discussion will consider these points. It's important for Wikipedia to have up-to-date information about a topic like this. I tried to avoid a promotional tone by keeping my company's name out of the article; perhaps there is more that needs to be done to avoid that, but I don't think that outright deletion is in the best interests of Wikipedia's readers. -Cindy (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • • We did not discuss this page specifically. I do not appreciate being name-dropped at all. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to specify which Wikipedia notability policy the subject meets. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberattack is a notable topic. This material was WP:SPLIT out of that article. We can talk about whether this actually deserves its own article or should be merged back to Cyberattack but the nom and most of the participants have (rightfully) whizzed right past that to more serious WP:NEO and WP:OR concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already !voted on that basis. Curious about what Wikipedia notability policy the article author had in mind when creating the separate article. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: The author is an inexperienced editor who contributed generations material to Cyberattack and wanted to expand further on 5th generation but we were concerned about a potential WP:UNDUE issue in Cyberattack. So giving the inexperienced editor sort of a sandbox seemed reasonable and we'd improve organization depending on how that developed. Wikipedia is a work in progress and, if the material is bogus, it's easy enough to delete. No need for pitch forks. Cindyjwilson has been upfront about her COI and we discussed all this at Talk:Cyberattack as it was happening. ~Kvng (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cindyjwilson: I'd like to know what specific reliable sources you believe have been using this generations terminology. Detailed comments above claim that it is only Checkpoint. If that's so, it's a serious problem. ~Kvng (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt I've reviewed this now. This is marketing garbage dumped into WP. Shameful abuse of editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was concerned at the time that it was just marketing material. Nothing I have seen since has changed my opinion on that score. Nothing personal, but someone with such an extreme COI had better provide some outstanding third party sources for something like this. ((u|zchrykng)) {T|C} 21:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng Thank you for asking, here is the thought process that initially lead me to believe that this topic met Wikipedia's notability standard.

First, the "five generations" discussed today grow out of the idea of "three generations" of firewall, which is very well established, and is prominently featured in Wikipedia's own article firewall (computing). Initially I looked at the "firewall" article, but because a firewall is not the proper tool to protect against the more recent generations, it didn't make sense to add it there, where it's only tangentially relevant. That's why I came to the cyberattack article -- because it seemed like the more natural fit. For the first three "generations," there are numerous reliable sources, which cite a wide variety of primary sources (industry experts, analysts, etc.) over many years. Just a couple examples -- more should be very easy to find if needed: TechRepublic (2002) and Computer Weekly (2012).

As I pointed out above, the definition of cyberattack had no references more recent than 2010, which I think anybody familiar with the field would agree is problematic for a rapidly evolving field. (I see that an editor here has since reverted it to that state, overriding the discussion you and I had on the talk page.)

I already listed the core articles I think establish it on Talk:Cyberattack, but here is a somewhat annotated, and updated, list:

Independent industry analysts who have used the terms -- analysts like these will communicate with companies in the industry, but this kind of piece reflects the analyst's perspective, it is not a commisioned report. I consider this a strong indication of general industry knowledge, and I believe it meets WP:RS.

• Turner, Rik (May 22, 2018). "Thinking about cyberattacks in generations can help focus enterprise security plans". Informa PLC. Ovum.
• Ovum/Informa (NEW)
• Forrester named my company as a leader in the industry (2018), and while its report didn't mention "generations" by name, it did mention the characteristics we associate with fifth generation in its review of our offerings.
• Frost & Sullivan issued a presentation centered around the generations. (Full disclosure, Check Point was a co-presenter, but Frost & Sullivan was the editorial "gatekeeper." Also, I haven't yet found a link to this online, still looking.)

Earned media -- these are publishers that make their own editorial judgments. If it's an interview with Check Point personnel, or in some cases a byline by Check Point personnel, there is still independent judgment being exercised for it to be published. These are not recycled press releases, or "pay-to-play" sites.

• Bloomberg: Check Point CEO on Safeguarding the Midterm Elections (NEW)
• Tech Beacon: Is Your Security Team Ready for Gen V Cyberattacks? (2018) (NEW)
• "Check Point CEO: Fighting fifth-generation cyber attacks". CNBC. May 18, 2018.
• Lowe, Nick. "Bridging the cybersecurity generation gap". IT Pro Portal.
• "ESG Talks Implications Of An Evolving Cyber Landscape With AccessIT [Video]". CSHub.com. May 16, 2018.
• Rogers, Rick (April 2, 2018). "Gen II security will not save your company from a Gen V cyber attack". Business Day. (As stated above, I'm no longer convinced this one is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.)

Industry usage -- these are companies independent of Check Point which are also using the "five generations" terminology. While they may not score high as "reliable sources," I believe their usage of the term speaks to its usage outside of my own company.

• Cooper, Bradley (May 9, 2018). "Prepare for 5th Generation or Gen V Cyber Attacks : Cyber Security 2018 Tips". Systools.
• Wickramanayake, Vijini (March 6, 2018). "5th generation cyber attacks". Cyberon.

Discussion of general concepts I can see from discussion by others above that WP:SYNTH may be a concern here. But these articles also initially struck me as significant, because even though they do not use the word "generation," they discuss trends in ways that align with the "generations" thinking.

• World Economic Forum (2018). "The Global Risks Report 2018 13th Edition". World Economic Forum. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 23, 2018.)
• Ashford, Warwick (December 20, 2017). "Top 10 cyber crime stories of 2017". Computer Weekly.</ref>
• Ashford, Warwick (July 4, 2017). "WannaCry a signal moment, says NCA". Computer Weekly.
• Wainwright, Rob. "Europol SOCTA 2017". European Police Commission.

To the editor who took offense to my naming them, I am sorry. I am still getting familiar with the etiquette here; I had thought that, since we had an extensive discussion about my editing, they would be interested to know the next step in the discussion, and I honestly thought they had reviewed my edits fairly closely. I meant no disresepect. I appreciate that they took the time to weigh in here.

One last point -- I hope the admin who closes this discussion will take note that the discussion was started on Twitter, by a competitor, and a good deal of discussion and coordination took place off Wikipedia, among editors who may or may not have undisclosed conflicts of interest of their own. I don't know how much that should impact the outcome, but I hope it is at least taken into consideration. Kvng, I appreciate your taking my good intentions toward Wikipedia, and I hope our competitors in the field share my wish to approach Wikipedia with curiosity and deference to the judgment of more experienced editors. -Cindy (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First off, this is not about cyber attacks in general, it is about this specific term an if we need an extra page for it. It is possible - and you are very welcome to - improve the cyberattack article without getting into "generations".

Second, the sources you provided seem to be very much "inspired" by the same source - most use the same language and imagery. Still no evidence that this is used at independent conferences, in research papers, etc. Even if the terminology were picked up by some companies, the most it would warrant would be a single remark in the cyberattack article.

Third, if a reputable source reports that some of your company talked about something, it does not automatically mean that they endorse that it is a term that is widely used.

For full disclosure: While I found this through Twitter, I have been a Wikipedia editor for many years and have no relation at all to the cyber security or ties to any vendor. I actually consider it a good thing that it brought attention to this matter. Averell (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is clearly a marketing term, there's no definition of fourth gen, third gen, second gen etc. The blogs cited above for fifth gen contain infographics directly created by the vendor who created the term, and the text is in some cases copied and pasted from their website. For reference, I do not work for a competitor, or even cyber security vendor or reseller. GossiTheDog 14:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment: WP:PAYTALK. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a marketing term. It is not actually used in the industry. It needs to die so people use legitimate terms. I am a security researcher with 15 years experience admittedly at a Checkpoint competitor. I've never heard this term used outside Checkpoint's marketing material. It's clearly designed to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt craiwill 21 August 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like internet garbage based on results of Google searches. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Really interested in the rationale for relisting this discussion. Bakazaka (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to digest here. I appreciate the extra time. ~Kvng (talk) 01:53, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Zoll[edit]

Rachel Zoll (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. In my opinion, the award she received does not confer notability. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - award used to establish notability is not in itself notable, so the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:44, 26 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) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:02, 27 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) 00:02, 27 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) 00:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The award might have contributed to notability had she won 1st place, but she came 2nd. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia:Notability (people): The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.Rachel Zoll is regarded as an important figure by news anchors and editors who depend on her interpretations to inform themselves and their readers. As an opinion maker she has stirred up controversy and has wide circulation among opponents. She has 13.5 thousand Twitter followers.Heron10 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional contributions to notability per WP:NBIO: Rachel Zoll has written a chapter in a best-selling book. Her work is cited in multiple books and on Wikipedia.Heron10 (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of satisfying notability criteria of WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO. A perfectly respectable professional who has so far not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable , independent sources, per WP:42. @Heron10:, do you have any verifiable evidence of Zoll being regarded as an important figure? She is a journalist, so writing articles is not in and of itself noteworthy. She works for the AP, so authoring a chapter in an AP publication (trumpeted in an AP press release, no less) does not contribute to notability. Receiving second place in a niche award from the American Academy of Religion is laudable, but doesn't rise to "well-known and significant award or honor" per WP:ANYBIO, and probably wouldn't even if she had won first place. Is there any indication that her citation rate is any higher or more impressive than the average journalist for AP, Reuters, or other syndicated news services? Notability is not inherited by working for notable companies, and using primary sources written by the subject cannot establish the notability of the subject: doing so invites improper synthesis in the form of a novel inference: "this person has been widely cited, therefore they must be notable." --Animalparty! (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per other delete votes. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article reads like a CV not an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 3 September 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Ponsi[edit]

Andrea Ponsi (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)

Based almost exclusively on publications by Andrea Ponsi except for this article. I have a hard time finding enough independent reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mario, Studio Intermational. Kent State University Office of Global Education. erased by wikipedia editor. American Institute of Architects (AIA) and from BIBLIOTECA CONDIVISA. Barbara Hahijary, Design Overseas, Deleted by a Wikipedia editor Indonesia+Design+n 74_Maremma+House and Andrea Ponsi ARCHIVIO ACCADEMICI ovA_165443 04:03, 27 August 2018

Architects' Houses,Princeton Architectural Press Editor 9 × 11.5 in (22.9 × 29.2 cm) Hardcover 304 pages 400 color illustrations Publication date: 04/24/2018 ISBN 978-1616897024 BOOK by MICHAEL WEBB for PRINCETON ARCHITECTURAL PRES. Thirty of the world’s leading architects, including Norman Foster, Thom Mayne, Tod Williams and Billie Tsien, talk about the houses they designed for themselves over the past decade. What inspired them, what were the constraints, how did their concepts take shape? Michael Webb explores the creative process and traces the influence of architects’ houses over the past two hundred years, from Jefferson’s Monticello to the creations of Charles and Ray Eames, Toyo Ito and Frank Gehry.Texts, sketches, and plans illustrate houses that differ widely, in size, material, character, and location. Princeton Architectural Press in the USA, and will soon be released by Thames & Hudson in the UK & EU. ovA_165443 14:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Casabella Japan ovA_165443 14:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a COI, and fairly obviously UPE, entry on a minor architect known only for designing his own houses. All of the citations are by the subject himself. Softlavender (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this piece of WP:SELFPROMOTION. MarnetteD|Talk 01:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the article ends up being kept it will need copyright clean-up to remove all remaining trace of the substantial copy-pasting in the initial version. Much of this has already been removed or edited out, so – rightly or wrongly – I'm not blanking the page right away. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:46, 1 September 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the King Child and Adolescent Center[edit]

Christ the King Child and Adolescent Center (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, largely based on related sources The Banner talk 21:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Once I trimmed out the unsourced original research/promotional narrative, what is left is minor and poorly sourced. Jesuit promotional article that fails GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - seems to be blatantly written like an informational advertisement for the organization. Tagging with WP:G11 in the case an admin agrees. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as obvious promo is obvious. –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of independent sources. GenuineArt (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is this part of a church organization, and if so, is that church notable? If so, it could be merged there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:15, 28 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 Withdrawing. Horrible spammy article but some evidence of actual coverage elsewhere, will work on it. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Home Energy Resources Unit[edit]

Home Energy Resources Unit (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 has two kinds of sources: those based on press releases, and primary sources (e.g. patents). Oh, and it reads like a PR blurb. The fact of Reiuters and the BBC reporting the press rleases previously resulted in Keep, but the "Marsh test" (following the Bad PR script on how to identify churnalism) shows that these originated with the firm and do not have intellectual independence. Add to that the fact that it's identified as a "prototype", as of two years ago, with nothing available on the market yet that I can find. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 26 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Software Creations (US)[edit]

Software Creations (US) (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:SIGCOV/WP:NCORP. Lordtobi (✉) 21:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nn company; signficant RS coverate not found. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - How did this last for 14 years here? Spam about a long dead company. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per rough consensus that there are sufficient sources (if only narrowly) to satisfy GNG. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Migrant Service, Mexico[edit]

Jesuit Migrant Service, Mexico (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, promo. Largely based on its own website and related sources. The Banner talk 21:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At least two substantial 3rd party sources, no. 5 and 8. And 4, if it is not too closely related. Two such aources are sufficient, and any inappropriate tone can be fixed. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  DGG, Ref 5 is the sole significant piece announcing the resumption of activities of the organisation.Ref 4 just mentions that a member of JMS took part in a discussion on migrant/refugee issues.Ref 8 is a research-paper on migrant-issues centered around a migration-programme of JMS by a non-notable university professor and published in a journal of questionable credibility.Which one of them devotes significant coverage about the subject? I appreciate your endeavor to save Jzsj's articles but.......... ∯WBG^converse 09:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to save them all. But then, I'm not trying to delete them all either. Some have been clearly notable , and quickly kept in other AfDs. Some are clearly not notable , and will be deleted. Most are borderline, and could be seen either way. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not trying to save them all.You only try to wrongfoot editors and admins alike with what seems to be a promise to edit the article. But in fact, after the spammy article is kept, we never see you there again. At least, that is my experience with you... The Banner talk 08:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Ow, and those sources are not in-depth descriptions of the organisation. More passing mentions. I know you are confused with the notion "exists = notable". [reply]

• Keep, in agreement with the previous "keep" remarks. Jzsj (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DGG's analysis that the sources are sufficient for WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. James500 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 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 (CSD G12) (Non-admin closure). — sparklism ^hey! 10:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Archiles (actor)[edit]

Johan Archiles (actor) (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)

After Speedy deletion declined, and PROD declined by creator, this probable hoax or self-promotional article now goes to AfD. No coverage found in reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, No credible assertion of significance. Even if everything in this article were true (doubtful), we need sources beyond IMDb and personal blogs. It is also noteworthy that article creator is indefinitely blocked on Commons as sock of a prolific sockpuppeteer of an affiliated account, see Commons:category:Sockpuppets of JOHAN ARCHILES. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nominator, fails WP:NACTORXyzSpaniel Talk Page 20:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • added CSD G12 tag as a lot of this article seems to be lifted straight from IMDB XyzSpaniel Talk Page 19:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 21:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - no notable Ghits, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Could be a hoax, but since speedy deletion failed I doubt that actually applies. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, something to note: A new user tried removing the AfD notice on the article. Potentially a sock of the aforementioned sockmaster/article creator. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still not meeting WP:NACTOR. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete it help me update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttwqs985 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC) — Ttwqs985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Braden Detelich[edit]

Braden Detelich (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 COI author, and notability for a BLP XyzSpaniel Talk Page 20:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - AfC submission was declined on multiple occasions for lack of reliable sources (see Draft:Braden_Detelich), and author (whose username would suggest is the subject) has apparently now simply recreated it in mainspace. Yes, the Chicago Tribune reference is reliable, but only includes a passing mention of the subject, so fails to provide significant coverage. This article also fails to avoid original research, as the author actually listed "Discussion with Braden Detelich" as a reference. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I wish him luck on his self-promotional campaign, but he will have to do it elsewhere. WP:PROMOTION. No evidence to be found for any sort of independent notability via significant coverage in reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity article. Sources pertaining to music are self-downloads. Sources pertaining to gymnastics are routine and trivial and fail to pass GNG. ----

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

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

The result was merge to Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibero-American University Tijuana[edit]

Ibero-American University Tijuana (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)

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 09:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this university connected to Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México? If so, I would support a redirect. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México, the main campus. See this source for more details. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is one of six, independent, Jesuit-run universities in Mexico. The "Ibero" refers to the former Spanish connection. We read at the reference given that "the university offers 13 undergraduate programs, 10 master's programs and one doctorate". Such reference to "the university" makes me conclude that it is no longer simply a branch of the university in Mexico City. Jzsj (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a degree-awarding institution of higher learning. Not WP:TNT eligible; I don't a point in deleting the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what policy? The Banner talk 04:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per MrX until convinced to the contrary.∯WBG^converse 11:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (NOT redirect) to Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México, the main campus. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. It's a separate university with a branch campus of its own (in Mexicali), and would justify a keep, if there were more material. The guideline is the practical one, endorsed in 95% of the AfDs over many years, tthat degree granting universities are treated as if they have notability. The reason for merging not aseparate article is that there isn't enough material to justify more than a combined article. That'swhat should have been proposed here in the first place, The decision to nominate these all for deletion is as bad a choice as making too many separarre articles in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 12:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge there isn't enough sourcing to explain how it is different from the main campus in terms of focusing on a speciality of subjects. At least with a redirect, it can always be split off again. I'm also going superficially with the visual logo of the school which is identical to the main, contrast that to University of California schools which have their own logos for each campus. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Main article is relatively not really big. We can merge to Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México. Lorstaking (talk) 16:11, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brunching Shuttlecocks[edit]

Brunching Shuttlecocks (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)

None of the citations are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. They are not reliable sources and are all primary sources. Promotional, non-encyclopedic tone. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources are way too weak. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree that it is poorly sourced XyzSpaniel Talk Page 13:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I haven't been able to find sources that would satisfy WP:WEB or WP:GNG. There are some mentions in reliable sources (e.g. essays in The Fan Fiction Studies Reader and Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet), but the coverage (1) isn't really substantial enough and (2) deals in more depth with the "Geek Hierarchy" than the website itself. None of the keep !votes from the 2006 AfD have any grounding in any recognisable current policy or guideline. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sure what were the standards for notability a decade ago when this article survived AfD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunching Shuttlecocks. It is not meeting WP:WEB. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The site this page is about deserves to be remembered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monroeb192 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Yoga[edit]

Shadow Yoga (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)

Only passing mentions are observed, except for the book which is written by the director himself. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Article created from passing mentions cobbled together to create the semblance of notability. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is definitely a thing. Maybe it should be redirected & merged to Ashtanga vinyasa yoga? Most of the other yoga forms/derivations mentioned in the Sidney Morning Herald article either have wiki pages, or redirect to other yoga forms? --Theredproject (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Passing mentions found. Fails WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV. Rzvas (talk) 18:10, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clate W. Mask Jr.[edit]

Clate W. Mask Jr. (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)

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE searches have yielded no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, just minor name checks and mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Terrible referencing, fails WP:ANYBIO, and shows no sign of notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. SportingFlyer talk 02:06, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Free Radio[edit]

Royal Free Radio (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)

Radio station not properly sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations. Every radio station that exists is not automatically presumed notable — a radio station has to pass all four of four criteria to qualify for a Wikipedia article. But this station appears to fail two of the four conditions: radio station requires a permanent OFCOM license, not just temporary special authority licenses, and it requires that the station is the subject of reliable source coverage to properly verify the article's content. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Query @Bearcat: - where are the four conditions that you mention documented? I looked at WP:NMEDIA as suggested, and did not find these conditions. I did find, for radio stations, Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming. Ross-c (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The four base conditions that a radio station always has to meet to be deemed notable are that (a) it has a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority (note the section on "unlicensed stations" that deprecates those as not notable in most circumstances), (b) it is actually on the air ("established broadcast history") rather than existing solely as an unlaunched construction permit, (c) it originates at least a portion of its programming schedule in its own dedicated studios ("originator of some programming") rather than existing as a pure rebroadcaster of another radio service, and (d) all three of those facts are referenceable to reliable sources outside the station's own self-published web presence. (People have created fake websites to "wikiverify" the existence of radio stations that didn't really exist at all, so a station's self-published claims about itself are not evidence that it actually meets any of the other three conditions.) Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:. I don't think your interpretation of the guidelines are reasonable. The use of words such as 'either' and 'or' clearly shows that not all conditions need to be met. Having looked into the station, it does have an established broadcast history having broadcast since the 1970s. I wasn't going to vote on this one, but I'm very concerned that your AFD summary includes an incorrect description of what a radio station needs to do in order to pass as notable. Ross-c (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I was one of the core writers of our notability standards for media — so my "interpretation" of what a radio station has to do to pass it can never be incorrect. If I worded it unclearly in some places, I can certainly revise that — but nothing I say about the notability criteria for radio stations can ever be wrong, because I was directly involved in the process of creating them in the first place, so I know exactly what they are and what they're supposed to be. Reliable source referencing about the radio station, for instance, is always absolutely mandatory, and never optional or overlookable — no radio station, regardless of what notability criteria the text claims the station passes, ever gets a free notability pass without reliable sourcing, because Wikipedia has seen hoax articles created about radio stations that didn't really exist at all. There are extremely rare exceptions where an unlicensed radio station, such as the North Sea pirate stations of the 1960s, got enough coverage and had wide enough cultural impact to clear WP:GNG regardless of the lack of a conventional broadcast license, but that still depends on its sourceability and not just on the fact that its existence as a radio station has been claimed — normal radio stations operating in normal contexts do have to be licensed to be presumed notable, and unlicensed stations are not automatically considered notable just because they exist. And all radio stations, with no exceptions for any reason, must always be properly referenced to be notable — no radio station gets handed a notability freebie just because of what the body text says, if the body text doesn't properly reference that what it says is true. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: As I understood it NMEDIA isn't a policy anyways, so your interpretation could be wrong. Is not policy determined by the consensus of the community, rather than just being whatever you wrote or intended to write? I think you're being a bit self-important with your declarations about the rightness or wrongness of the guideline interpretation. That said, I agree that reliable sourcing is essential regardless of the station's claimed audience size. Zortwort (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unsourced original research; no attempt has been made to show notability or provide sources. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No sources. Zortwort (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, no attempt to cite the article XyzSpaniel Talk Page 19:09, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Johnson (Mormon)[edit]

Kenneth Johnson (Mormon) (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 non-notable subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very minor passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Per WP:BEFORE searches, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not appear to exist for this subject. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and is run of the mill. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Feel free if you can make a strong, well-sourced argument for keeping, I am always willing to revisit, but my searches aren't finding notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 26 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam K. Shimabukuro[edit]

Sam K. Shimabukuro (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 non-notable subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very minor passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not appear to exist for this subject. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and what nominator mentioned. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Feel free to flag me to take another look if you can make a strong, well-sourced argument for keeping, I am always willing to revisit, but my searches aren't finding notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be something in the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saints history. I don't have that book on me at the moment, so I will have to wait until I get my copy to check for sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 28 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis B. Neuenschwander[edit]

Dennis B. Neuenschwander (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 non-notable subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks, brief quotations from the subject, and fleeting passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and shows no sign of notability. Promotional as well. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be something in the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history. I will check when I get my copy of the book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn A. Mickelsen[edit]

Lynn A. Mickelsen (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)

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, name checks and very brief passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and is very run of the mill. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only claim of significance or importance is being a member of the Seventy (LDS Church) (which is not such a prominent group that all its members are inherently notable), and the only substantial reference appears to be the bio compiled by the church on his appointment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 29 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 prejudice against re-creating as a redirect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larry R. Lawrence[edit]

Larry R. Lawrence (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)

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, name checks and fleeting passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No independent coverage of subject. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think people who hold senior offices in major religious groups can be inherently notable due to that office, regardless of what sources exist for them. For example, I'd say anyone who is a genuine Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church is notable for that fact, and we don't need to ask for sources demonstrating notability, only sources to support the fact that they are a Bishop (and if all the sources are Catholic publications, that shouldn't be an issue for independence). Now, should the same standard apply to LDS general authorities? Tentatively, I'd say yes, although one could make an argument that a rule which applies to a church with over a billion adherents and nearly 2000 years of history might not apply to a church with only 16 million adherents and which was founded less than two centuries ago. Obviously, there are many small denominations/groups with only a few thousand members, which would be notable enough for an article, but their senior leadership would not be inherently notable. There is a spectrum here, and I'm not sure which side of the cut-off the LDS church should said to be on. SJK (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328, Jgstokes, Johnpacklambert, Purplebackpack89, and Rhododendrites: Notify participants in previous discussions. SJK (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete @SJK: I look at it a little differently. Is there any indication at all that the preponderance of current general authorities receive independent coverage? At least every few months or so, there's an article in the Los Angeles Times about what Archbishop Gomez is up to. Do most LDS general authorities receive coverage in their respective local (non-LDS affiliated) newspapers? I've yet to see this. And, I'm sorry, but I hold to my position that LDS-affiliated publications such as Deseret News do not constitute the independent coverage required for GNG (again, I must remind everybody that reliability and independence are two different things) pbp 14:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess I'll just copy/paste some of my !vote from the last time, as it doesn't look like anything much has changed: Delete and redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Fails GNG/BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, all I can say is the sourcing we have on Godfrey Okoye is far below the quality of sourcing we have on Lawrence. Michael Ugwu Eneja has an article with no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 3 September 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 01:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McSkillet[edit]

McSkillet (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)

Has not received significant coverage outside of one event (his death). Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 16:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing currently there that warrants his own article to memorialize him, sad as the circumstances are. If every YouTuber with 800,000 subs had an article, according to Social Blade there would be about 10,000 of them. Bennycat (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the same as saying that if every town with 10,000 inhabitants had an article, there would be 800,000 of them: they do, and there are. complainer 21:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Known only for his death. Would not have an article otherwise; it is a clear case of recentism. --Folengo (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable now as of the one event rule; when YouTubers and online entertainers inevitably get looked upon as similar to actors in the 20th century; he'll get one anyway, though. GuzzyG (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. 68.132.85.183 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Guilty of murdering two innocent people, he should not be glorified by such an article. Commiting suicide, OK. But like this? Let's get rid of such criminals. I know - he's dead etc etc but self inflicted. 160 km/h on the wrong lane with a sports car - that is suicide. Royalrec (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not. Wikipedia does not tolerate censorship, and articles about criminals are rife. complainer 21:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There was some coverage before the incident [6], but that's not enough. Given that more events are unlikely, WP:BLP1E applies. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL (not saying that the subject should be that, just that the policy doesn't encourage article creation for non-notables upon their death) Nate • (chatter) 04:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He only seems to be notable for one event. Also, this event seems to be a rather generic crime; we cannot have articles on every automobile accident. Interestingly, it would seem that the "McSkillet Burrito" has a higher level of notability than this man. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No real notability. Fixer88 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and a double murderer. Which may be notable in terms of internet hits and ghoulish public reception, but is so not admirable in the field of human nature. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not judge the subjects of our articles. Nobody is seriously proposing to delete Hitler. complainer 14:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Godwin's law. WWGB (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're comparing some young, dumb nobody to Hitler? Jiminy Christmas. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, the point here shifted from "he isn't notable because he's an asshole" to "he isn't notable because everyone mentions Hitler" to "he isn't notable because he just isn't good as Hitler"? Does anybody have a point that actually relates to Mr. Skillet? complainer 21:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Death does not establish notability, especially in the case of an 18-year-old YT "star" who's now nothing more than a jerk who killed two innocent people. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Himself is not enough notable.If there are enough primary article for Double murder-suicide of The mother and daughter,(I omit their name here)maybe article can be made with their names,but not enough primary source.Angelorphan (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as said before is he guilty for murdering two innocent people - for nothing more in my opinion. --Bodhi-Baum (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failure of WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination reason is fallacious. People who actually read [WP:ONEEVENT]] will find the following: "[...] when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. ". There being no article on the event McSkillet was involved in, this policy simply does not apply. Everyone else seems to focus on:

• the fact that McSkillet was not famous before his death. This is NOT a wikipedia policy: plenty of people became notable posthumously. I shall not mention any to avoid the tired "are you comparing a 18-year old jerk with [insert misunderstood artist]?" argument.
• the fact that he was a jerk. Again, NOT a wikipedia policy: Wikipedia has the world's largest collection of jerk articles, spanning from Leopoldo Galtieri, who made it a national policy, to Jeremy Clarkson, who is basically only famous for being one.
• that he was famous for being a youtuber: that was before he died, and he did not have an article then. Now he is famous for being a youtuber and a spree killer.
• various emotional arguments, which don't belong anywhere near wikipedia. complainer 21:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable before his death DrKilleMoff (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really a valid argument. The first ever zombie will definitely deserve an article. complainer 19:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. People die, some more idiotic and malicious than others. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: How long are we going to drag this one out? Not that I care about the reputation of this guy, but I'm generally against these long drawn-out trashings of anyone's life story, no matter who there are/were. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, this is a snow close by now ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 00:53, 3 September 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hayato Settsu[edit]

Hayato Settsu (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was [He] does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. This remains valid as Settsu has not played in a fully pro league or received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and recreate if he actually makes his league debut. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:08, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Takumi Kusumoto[edit]

Takumi Kusumoto (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that he will play in future and on the number links in the article. Claims to notability based on future appearances have been consistently rejected, and the links listed are routine coverage, insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and recreate if he makes his league debut as J2 is a fully-pro league. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:08, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fumiya Oishi[edit]

Fumiya Oishi (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that he will play in future and on the number links in the article. Claims to notability based on future appearances have been consistently rejected, and the links listed are routine coverage, insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and recreate if he makes his debut as J3 is now considered fully-pro. The cup game was against a non-league club. Govvy (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:08, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of open APIs[edit]

List of open APIs (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)

Arbitrary list, no apparent inclusion criteria, inexhaustive and prone to promotional editing. MarioGom (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dead links, promotional links, useless descriptions. If it is possible to have a reasonable list with this title, this isn't how to start. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mostly external links, promotional in tone, and does not appear to pass WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 01:11, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rozlyn Khan[edit]

Rozlyn Khan (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)