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. SpinningSpark 19:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Macdonald[edit]

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

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

The references are either primary, unreliable (e.g. London SE1) or only mention the company in passing. This from the FT's "howtospendit" site is the best that site is no way comparable to coverage in the FT proper. WP:CORP does not appear to be met and this is just a flashy ad for the company. SmartSE (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I've looked at most of the refs and I think they are falling just short of notability. I googled and looked at news and they have quite a lot of coverage not in the article, but it is pretty much the same as what is in the article, bits and pieces. Szzuk (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is an article about them in the financial times, they have a royal warrant as silversmiths to the British family, and have a section of Harrods dedicated to them, as well as many mentions of their work (including the Dresden Orb)...and they've been established for 50 years. I think they just qualify for WP:Notability Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: As I said in the nomination, the article is not in the FT proper but in a weekend supplement which while reliable, isn't anywhere near as indicative of notability as an article in the real FT would be. If there were other sources then I would be persuaded the other way, but I don't think they exist. Your comments about the royal warrant and how long they have been in business do not have any basis in policy. SmartSE (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be a weekend supplement, I highly doubt the FT would be publishing feature articles about fictitious companiesDeathlibrarian (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can find five articles on Factiva, including an article in The Times, that feature Grant Macdonald. This seems to substantiate them as noteworthy, if you take into account the royal warrant.

• "Object Lesson: Grant Macdonald's Gemini centrepiece" Bethan Ryder Bethan Ryder 262 words 22 July 2014 5:56 GMT "The Telegraph"
• Mike Litherland "Under the Hammer" 417 words, 4 March 2017, Liverpool Echo
• "More Money Than Sense?" Daily Mail, 30 January 2014, 97 words, (English)
• "Beautiful and deadly, too"25 October 2003 "The Times"Money 10
• "Grant Macdonald" Director, 1 October 2012, 590 words, Hannah Baker, Hannah Baker, (English) Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a Royal warrant matters in Britain for a lot. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but rewrite and trim to a stub that could be supported on the basis of WP:RS. As Bearian noted, the company holds a royal warrant. Chetsford (talk) 05:04, 25 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usabilla[edit]

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

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

No coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has beeen included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The company's name is mentioned in passing by some UX bloggers, but I found no in-depth coverage of their software/services. Coverage about funding carries little or no weight in considerations of notability. —Ringbang (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No strong independent RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional, poor sourcing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:55, 21 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Group[edit]

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

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

I can't find any coverage about this company in reliable sources to indicate that WP:CORP is met. SmartSE (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The refs in the article aren't sufficient to meet gng. They are a stock market listed company but in a not very glamorous industry so i couldn't find anything on google or news. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In terms of the refs, only the Guardian article is RS and mentions them in any meaningful way.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:05, 20 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HFTP[edit]

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

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

I'm having trouble find any mention of this other than in the cited man page. There are a few references to a feature by this name in Apache Hadoop, but that is a different thing with the same name. The Hadoop sense also appears to be insufficiently notable.

• HFTP Guide in the Hadoop documentation
• Definition of HFTP in Hadoop: The Definitive Guide

—Ringbang (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think it's a term created and only used by lftp. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivia. I can't find any WP:RS for this, not even a IANA reference. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 26 February 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. SpinningSpark 22:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borrtex[edit]

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

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

Article is sourced to non-RS like YouTube and the composer's own website. A search on Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, and JSTOR finds only one incidental mention (under both his stage and real names). Subject also fails to meet any of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Only possible notability is his music once could be heard in the background of a YouTube video in which Gary Vaynerchuk was speaking, which doesn't quite cut it. Meeting celebrities or posing for photos with celebrities also doesn't qualify under the notability guidelines. Chetsford (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is quite a lot of videos on YT and Vimeo with his music, not only with Gary Vaynerchuk speaking. And I think that if someone's music appears in more than 1,000 video projects worldwide, it's definitely notable. -- Speaking about artist composing instrumental / soundtrack music. MusicHyper (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"There is quite a lot of videos on YT and Vimeo with his music" Simply uploading 1,000 videos of yourself to YouTube isn't covered under our notability guidelines if no one, in any RS, anywhere, has taken occasion to notice it. Chetsford (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' a lack of reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' This was deleted in November 2017 as Daniel Bordovský, see also Talk:Daniel Bordovský. It is basically the same article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:51, 19 February 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. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josan Sandeep[edit]

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

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

Article is on an Assistant Director. There are no special notability guidelines for Assistant Directors. Based, therefore, on the GNG, this individual does not qualify. A search of Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any references. The article itself is cited entirely to non-RS like Vimeo, IMDB, and the guy's personal website. Chetsford (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An assistant director has to pass WP:GNG, on the strength and depth of reliable source coverage about him in media, to qualify for a Wikipedia article — his notability cannot be established by sourcing his credits to IMDb, or to his own self-published web presence, or to Vimeo or YouTube copies of the projects he worked on. It's media coverage or nowhere, with nothing in between. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• disambiguation Now the page is edited with good reference and details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathish1127 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is so promotional that have nominated it for G11. Associate directors are rarely notable but if his first directorial film The Journey is a hit he may qualify for an article if he gets significant coverage and that would beat G4. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 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. SpinningSpark 22:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trini Kirtsey[edit]

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

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

Article source to non-RS fails GNG; BEFORE finds only reference in a Google News search is an incidental mention in the Orlando Sentinel. Article fails WP:NACTOR - actor has not had multiple lead roles and has not won a major award. Chetsford (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Page's creator removed AfD template. Probably COI Mackey Mice (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete apart from short films only has one prominent role in a feature film titled In the Still of the Night and that film does not have an article so he does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG at this time but may in the future Atlantic306 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kase Craig[edit]

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

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

Non-notable dancer - in the corps de ballet of a ballet company which itself is only of marginal notability (French Wikipedia does not even have an article for it). The only thing that might count towards WP:GNG is a stuff.co.nz article from 2009. Promotional article. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although more notable than winners of one day pageants. Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 20:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG NZFC^(talk) 02:14, 21 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naanol Tesfaye[edit]

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

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

PROD contested, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Coverage is simply of the "young talent gets transfer linked to big club" variety, not significant or notable. GiantSnowman 19:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The player has reccived a national team call up, here in Ethiopia he's getting super-attention therefor a wiki is placed for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimelis Bekkele (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC) --Note: This user is a sock of Josh.172 (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh.172. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shimelis Bekkele: Call-up isn't appearance. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. The subject of this article, a 14-year-old child, has apparently been called up to his country's under-17 squad. For notability as a footballer, the criteria at WP:NFOOTY state explicitly that players must have played in a senior international match or in a fully professional league, and that "Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." As Mr Tesfaye clearly doesn't satisfy either of those statements, we consider WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and of each other. The article contains a string of sources, but most are fansites or self-publishing websites from the first 20 Google search results. Of the very few that may be reliable, the content is as nominator states, routine transfer gossip, which is not enough. I can find nothing not already in the article that would bring this subject any closer to passing GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The sources provided are either blogs, routine transfer talk or "isn't this guy going to be amazing" speculation. Fenix down (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The player has played in Vasalund IF therefor in regards to playing in a professional league*(Division 1 - SE)*. Therefor player is subject to note as that includes into pro-leagues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimelis Bekkele (talk • contribs) --Note: This user is a sock of Josh.172 (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh.172. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The Swedish third division is not fully professional per WP:FPL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And even if it were, he hasn't played in it: being registered to a club whose first team is a member of a particular league isn't the same as playing in that league. The Swedish Federation website is comprehensive, and the only results it gives are for under-14 and under-15 level matches. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The player as referred as mr. Tesfaye has played accordingly in pro-league as in *SE(Sweden) Vasalund IF which is the club in regards to the player includes in the Division 1-Sweden which is a professional league according to Swedish Football Association/SVFF*. In regards to sources the subject has been in radio including TV therefor sources are reliable. In regards to this the player may not suit the national team requirment as mr. Tesfaye has only reccived a call up to Ethiopia but has not made his senior debut with the national team yet, but he do fall into the pro-league requirement making him suited for a note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh.172 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For info, above editor is the article's creator -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Userfy A couple of citations doesn't help, the kid still fails WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Suits WP:NFOOTBALL because the player mr. Tesfaye was registrered and played competitive through Vasalund IF in their professional league, and according to the Swedish Football Association as explained above, Vasalund IF played in the Division 1 which is a professional league in regards to the Association. Therefor mr. Tesfaye suits WP:NFOOTBALL and should be noted. Update Looking at what Struway2 said; yes you're right, after checking reports the player has been playing in the U16 & 15 leagues and from what I know he hasn't played in the senior team within the Division 1. His national team call-up still brings him up for a note in terms of recognition in major media within african TV and newspapers, but this is up to you, as a football reporter; I am for a note however.Ethiopiancast101 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethiopiancast101 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC) --Note: This user is a sock of Josh.172 (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh.172. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC) — Ethiopiancast101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Above editor has mysteriously popped up from nowhere, having never edited before...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also afraid that !keep voters are socks of the creator, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh.172, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: All 3 !keep voters are the same person per SPI. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:40, 24 February 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. Some of the participants to the discussion here (especially the many ones who have only a handful of edits yet) may be surprised at this "delete" close, given the large numbers of "keep" !votes. However, this discussion is not a vote, it's the strength of the arguments that counts, not the number. Going through the "keep" !votes (and ignoring the strong whiff of sock/meat-puppeting), only Citationsaurus attempted to make a policy-based argument, which, however, I find not convincing at all. All others only use arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and I have ignored them accordingly. That leaves the "delete" !votes by the nom, JBhunley, and Sportingflyer. Hence, the "delete" !votes carry the day. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Brooks[edit]

To whoever is running the sock/meat-puppet circus, could you please at least teach your people that their keep votes go on this page, and to stop vandalizing Michael J. Brooks with them. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Brooks (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 person has not received substantial in-depth coverage in reliable sources as is required to meet WP:BIO. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Michael Brooks Show closed as delete a few days ago. SmartSE (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Michael Brooks is a prominent figure in independent media. He is a daily contributor on the Majority Report, which is a YouTube show with over 220,000 subscribers. His writing has been featured in prominent outlets, such as The Baffler, Jacobin, and Al Jazeera. I struggle to understand why it’s not seen as worthwhile to document independent media figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.218.216 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Umm, Michael Brooks is a notable media figure on the left with at least a thousand subscribers to his political podcast and The Majority Report which he co-hosts has been a prominent news source for the left for over a decade. Not sure why you're talking his page down - Gwennessy (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwennessy (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Gwennessy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. I definitely think that Michael Brooks is a substantial figure and do not understand why this page is marked for deletion. Brooks has his own left politics podcast with over 1000 patrons and is a co-host of The Majority Report with Sam Seder which has a large following of over 200k subscribers and millions of views on YouTube, Michael is also a contributor to The Young Turks which has a massive following.96.93.9.75 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do not understand why this page should be deleted. It meets all notable standards, sources are listed, WP:GNG guidelines are met. This person is important enough to have an own wikipedia entry as he hosts his own youtube-show and is regular guest on other liveshows like Majority Report or the Young Turks (which has 7 Billion views). - 83.135.130.64 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject is not required to have "substantial in-depth coverage in reliable sources" as he clearly meets the qualifications for WP:AUTHOR §3:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

The subject of this article is a published author, a contributor to the online magazine Salon, host of his own podcast The Michael Brooks Show, and a long time co-host of The Majority Report with Sam Seder, a 10+ year old show with over 222,000 subscribers and over 104,388,714 views on youtube.

These statistics also satisfy the qualifications of WP:ENT §3:

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

This page meets the requirements for notability and should not be deleted. In the future any issues with this pages citations should be addressed in the talk section of the page. - Citationsaurus (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Citationsaurus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Michael Jamal Brooks is a notable media figure within the youtube political commentary community and has contributed to several publications with the Jacobin and Baffler among others. He has been the cohost of the Majority report for upwards of 5 years and has over 100 million views. Jamesonisbryce (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC) — Jamesonisbryce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Michael Jamal Brooks is a successful journalist & online media figure, most notably for his work on The Majority Report, as well as his own YouTube program 'The Michael Brooks Show," and contributions to Salon.com, Al Jazeera, The Baffler, Jacobin, and Open Democracy. A person of intrigue and infamy, he's more than earned his right to a spot on this here site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BakedNebraska (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) — BakedNebraska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Michael Jamal Brooks is a notable media figure within the youtube community, who provides smart political commentary. He definitely merits a page and the sources cited check out- Precariousfox (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC) — Precariousfox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Michael J. Brooks is a noted political commentator and author. He has his own program with over 1,000 subscribers and has been the co-host of The Majority Report for 5 years, a show with over 100 million views. He has also appeared on the Young Turks. He is a co-author of Buddha's Playbook and has written outlets such as Al Jazeera, The Baffler, and Open Democracy. Empyreal808 (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC) — Empyreal808 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Citationsaurus -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ Eppelsheimer -- RoySmith (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Malicious investigation request WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Citationsaurus filed by WikiVirusC determined that I am not a sock puppet account. - Citationsaurus (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing malicious about it. The SPI I filed is located here. The afD for the podcast seemed suspicious to me, with you creating an account, blanking the afD, and then later voting keep. And then when this afD appeared, after no votes for four days, you voted keep along with 2 IPS, and two accounts with no other edits, and a temporary addition of another IP edits vote from the article creator[1][2], all within a span of 2 hours. This seemed even more suspicious and along with the prior suspicions I decided to file a SPI. There was no malice involved. And I wasn't the only one to think it was worth investigating as RoySmith (talk · contribs) filed one as well with you as suspected master. Yes the checkuser determined unrelated, but for afD contributors here and the closing admin, please note the WP:SPAs that have voted here, who had no other activity outside of this deletion discussion or the prior one for podcast. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the guidelines listed in "Please do not bite the newcomers" WP:DNB. I admit that I made mistakes when I first joined because I was ignorant of the system, and I'd like to remind you that assuming good faith is an essential part of Wikipedia WP:AGF - Citationsaurus (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you WP:AGF. I assumed good faith on the first AfD. On the second occurrence I decided to follow through with filling a SPI. You then declaring that as malicious is in no way assuming good faith. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am the original author of the article and the article about The Michael Brooks Show itself that was previously deleted on 11th February 2018. The deleted article was then restored by an editor and posted to to a users's page [3] with the message on the deleting editor's talk page "Another plausible way I could have closed the AfD was as merge to Michael J. Brooks.". This is now what I am attempting to do as well as adding additional secondary sources. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to write articles on a notable figure that was currently missing from Wikipedia that I believe warrants a page. I have read through all the relevant guidelines and have spent some time since the Show page was deleted studying these again and I know this page meets them all including WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT. I am concerned with how I have been treated in this whole process as a new editor. I have also read WP:BITE and I am far from convinced this has been followed by more senior editors taking part in this discussion. In particular with reference to point 14 under 'how to avoid being a biter' - "Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out." I am following all guidelines, yet I had one page taken down and not given the chance to improve it, or told how to improve it and have been labelled a sock puppet. I do not think WP:AGF policy has been adhered to either. The page as it stands has multiple sources and the host involved has notable coverage in the media. If any more experienced editors would like to point to how exactly it needs to be improved to stay then I would be welcome of the help, instead of just trying to delete a perfectly valid page. Claireliontamer (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC) — Claireliontamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep: Michael J. Brooks is the co-host for the five-time Podcast Award winging (2012-2015,2017 category — politics) The Majority Report. The Majority Report is broadcasted live Monday through Friday 12 PM Eastern. For his work in broadcast news media, Brooks appears regularly as a political and cultural analyst on outlets including Huffpost Live, SirusXM, AlJazeera English, CCTV, The Young Turks and France 24. His writing has appeared in Al Monitor, Al Jazeera, the Washington Post, the Baffler, and Democracy Journal. On top of his continuing work for the Majority Report, Brooks founded The Michael Brooks Show, an interactive & innovative new media collective that combines online community building among subscribers with political analysis & theory debate/discussion. Brooks has interviewed many leading journalists & political analysts in his media career, such as Mark Ames, Alyona Minkovski, Corey Pein, Trita Parsi, Steven A. Cook, and Julia Ioffe. Brooks has also been a guest on a number of politics, culture, and news/commentary shows like Zero Squared with Douglas Lain, Mixed Mental Arts, Pineal Express, and News from Nowhere. eppelsheimer (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Michael J. Brooks is the cohost of an award winning podcast (The Majority Report), as well as the host of his own podcast (The Michael Brooks Show). I am unsure why this article would be deleted but it certainly should not be. Brooks' voice is incredibly important to many people in the realm of online news media, and deleting this article would greatly hinder him in his pursuit to share his opinions in a free marketplace of ideas. - 2605:A000:D1C6:4900:3412:AE29:517B:FD44 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.This person is very notable and pumps out quality researched content on the daily. - 70.67.169.63 (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Michael J. Brooks is a prominent figure in independent US media. He is one of few media personalities who brings conversations with major political thinkers, writers and activists to a younger Youtube and podcasting audience. In addition to interviewing and maintaining ongoing conversations with these prominent voices (e.g. Adolph Reed Jr, Ronnie Kasrils, Bhaskar Sunkara) his show The Michael Brooks Show is one of few outlets in the United States to substantively engage with international news and history, which is not surprising in light of Brooks' history of publication in important journalistic outlets across the world (Al Jazeera, Al Monitor, Huffington Post, etc). This is someone with a unique perspective, substantial reach and growing popularity, and so meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. FourThree (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC) — FourThree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep.His reach is significant on the left spectrum of politics and it's important that information about him stay on wiki as it follows every wiki protocol . - 184.148.128.150 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Michael Brooks creates high quality content using high quality research. Definitly a source i trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.199.35.44 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Having looked through the numerous sources on this page, I can only conclude that there is sufficient amount of coverage from various sources to justify Michael J. Brooks as both a notable media figure, in addition to his long time contribution to notable shows like The Majority Report with Sam Seder and the Young Turks. - Draagonslayer19 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC) — FourThree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENT. As near as I can see the material in arguably Everything else consists of blogs, Twiter and even some from Redit. The large number of apparent 'puppets' makes me think this article is the subject of a coordinated campaign and likely undisclosed paid editing. Jbh ^Talk 20:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and removed the obvious bad refs - Twitter, Redit, linkspam of his own YouTube show and his Patron account. The first source I looked at after that was to a poster with his name on it. I am not going to continue through the sources - most of the others look like they are his reporting or links to his contributor page at some mainstream press organizations. Nothing that would convince me there is any RS significant coverage there. Jbh ^Talk 20:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note I meant to note this earlier, but due to the obvious SOCK/MEAT situation, I have semi-protected this page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete did some searching, and it's hard to find any significant independent coverage. Doesn't help that a few Michael J. Brooks exist, but he's failed to become even the most notable Michael J. Brooks apart from the wikipedia page. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:48, 19 February 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)} 17:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double Nickels (film)[edit]

Double Nickels (film) (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 nothing film. Not a single review I can find at Rotten Tomatoes. Cast, director, generally not notable. Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 23:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The best so far I can bring to the table is

Variety's Film Reviews: 1975–1977. Variety's Film Reviews Series. Bowker. 1989. ISBN 978-0-8352-2794-0. Retrieved February 11, 2018. More empty calories for junk-film fans; cheap but tasty. ... Jack Vacek Ed Ed Abrams Jordan Patrice Schubert George George Cole Tami Heidi Schubert ... Though it may not please the fender-benders. Jack Vacek shows a genius here for getting his characters out of the expensive cars and into the cheap cars just before the smashup. If nothing else, that takes more plot development than these oilers usually have. Trying to judge the commercial prospects of a film like "Double Nickels" is like weighing the nutritional value of a Twinkie.

The review in Variety is longer, but the above is what I'm able to extract from snippet view. So we are a fathom or two away from WP:NFILM. I'm willing to change my mind if something more substantial can be found. Sam Sailor 23:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep a "low-budget" film that's apparently awful, but [4] a well as Sam's link is enough for it to meet the (generally very low) bar for film notability, IMO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as per power~enwiki, with these references, just scrapes in as notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:21, 27 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wingsworld[edit]

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

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

Non-notable Chineese manufacturer of airplanes models. I couldn't find high-quality links mentioning it at Google News. Also it seems like the company has no page on Chineese Wikipedia. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability of any kind, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very little independant RS on them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:22, 27 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kloxo-MR[edit]

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

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

fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please mention specific clause of GNG where this article fails. Please also let us know have you considered alternatives to deletion before nominating it for deletion? --Muhmmad.mehroz (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the references are to web forums or the project's Github page. There are lots of "free open-source web hosting control panel" and no claim of notability is made for this project. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  
• Keep The web forum reference is the official support site for kloxo-mr. Further more reference links can be improved which is better than removing an article entirely. To support my statement here are some links which can replace the existing reference link:
  • https://gozenhost.com/news/how-to-install-kloxo-mr-control-panel/ (Claims: Kloxo MR is a good alternative to most popular cPanel)
  • https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-install-kloxo-mr-hosting-control-panel-on-centos/ (Claims: Kloxo MR is powerful, user-friendly, and ready to serve. This link also supports the feature list provided on Wikipedia)
  • http://www.servermom.org/install-kloxo-mr-centos-vps/ (Claims: Kloxo MR is enhanced version of Kloxo with functionalities that were not present in Kloxo. This site also claims: "Kloxo is too complete for a free web panel. It has a bunch of advanced features making new users a bit frustrated in using it for the very first time")--Muhmmad.mehroz (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PRODUCT. There is no coverage that I can find on this subject - a howto blurb is simply not significant coverage. Jbh ^Talk 21:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Help forums and github links don't count for anything when trying to establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No RS to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samahan ng Bagong Kabataan[edit]

Samahan ng Bagong Kabataan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article relies entirely on one source - their own website, which no longer exists. A search turned up a FaceBook page, a YouTube video, and a couple of Wikipedia scrapes. Fails WP:NORG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. There is possibly more significant coverage in foreign language press but with literally no independent coverage the mere possibility of coverage is insufficient to keep. Jbh ^Talk 14:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC) (late signature)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First off, some of the information is anachronistic, such as an email from the 1970s. Next, a simple Google news search reveals zero sources. Almost nothing is sourced, even to their own website. It's a just a youth association, one of many. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find proper sourcing to do better. An organization like this is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists or existed, if the only sourcing present in that article is its own self-published content about itself — it needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, not just to have its own website, to earn inclusion here. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 25 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viswasara Tantra[edit]

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

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

Nothing here fails WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article uses reliable sources. Both the sources are acclaimed publications in India and are owned by world famous organisations. You may verify the organisations and may send them mail(s) to ask whether the books are published by them or not.Badshah165 (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Sitush and Bishonen: you are the only editors I can think of with experience in Indian related things (or the only ones I see talking about such). Do either of you have any familiarity with this work or an idea if there may be Hindi sources? Fragments like this make me think it could be well known work but I can not find anything to back up that assumption. The line in Guru Gita " Another view is that Guru Gita is part of Viswasara Tantra" cited to the same reference as here and nothing more, is the kind of weaselly wording that makes me think it could be a fringe thing. Jbh ^Talk 21:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, no. My knowledge of this stuff is as a grain of sand on the beach that is Sitush's knowledge. There, I've pinged him again for you. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• No idea, sorry. Never heard of it. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you both. Jbh ^Talk 21:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Delete No evidence this passes WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. See my comment above for my reasoning and concern. Jbh ^Talk 21:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could not find anything which can justify an article. --Hagennos^Talk 16:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't see any RS for this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:26, 27 February 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. ansh666 19:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waltair Main Road[edit]

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

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

The content of this is more applicable to a travel guide which Wikipedia is not. Delete as per WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE Hagennos (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't see how WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE is relevant here. An article on any street may mention the major buildings and establishments along the street, e.g. Champs-Élysées, Regent Street, Fifth Avenue. WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE cautions against writing it like a guide where the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants or the current price of a café au lait may be mentioned, however it is permissible in the article to mention notable locations. The judgement here should be about whether the road is notable enough to warrant its own article, which I cannot determine based on the references given. Hzh (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "There are so many Star Hotels, shopping malls, Hospitals and restaurants are located in Waltair Main Road like...", is an example of WP:NOTTRAVEL as it is descriptively written to suggest reads what can be found there - those locations aren't notable as such, they're just indiscriminately mentioned. Ajf773 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few words can be deleted, that is not the justification for the deletion of an entire article. You have misapplied WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, which is about what not to put into an article, not whether an article should be deleted (the criteria on the deletion of an article about a road like this would be primarily about its notability). Hzh (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can if the whole article is written like a travel guide. In this case, notability is the main reason for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have ever read a travel guide like this, and it was not nominated for deletion on notability. Only some words need to be deleted and rewritten and the article would read fine (but may still be deleted based on notability criteria). The problem is its grammar and the attempt to big up the place rather than about WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE can conceivably be used to delete an article if the article's title is something like "Best place to eat on Fifth Avenue", but this is not. This is simply about a road, and whether it stays or not is largely about its notability. Hzh (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want to get into a stupid argument when we both agree it should be deleted??? Ajf773 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have ever agreed it should be deleted. I said it should be deleted if if it is not notable, and that the sources provided did not show its notability. Sources may well be found to support its notability. It's always better to try and use the correct rationale to propose an article for deletion, if nothing, it will let the person who wrote the article to know what the actual criteria is for the notability of an article, and do it better next time, like finding better sources (for example, a map is not a source for establishing notability, nor is a passing mention in an article). Hzh (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable street per WP:GEOROAD. Ajf773 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Institute of Indian Geographers identifies the road as one of the city's main thoroughfare s. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how does mention in IIG provide WP:GNG IIG is an independent organization and does not have any official sanction in India --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 20:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:GEOROAD & significant RS coverage not found. The article exists to advertise the stores that are located there -- that's not what the encyclopedia is for. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:GEOROAD. A passing mention in an article is not significant coverage. Jbh ^Talk 21:35, 18 February 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. ansh666 19:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Charles[edit]

Junior Charles (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:NTRACK and there's no other indication the subject meets WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Junior Charles is an ACTIVE National Athlete. There are many articles on less active athletes on Wikipedia, please reconsider deleting the page

*Delete - No meeting and not major achievement to meet WP:NTRACK. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hypocrites' Club#Members. Doesn't look like there's going to be any more discussion after two full relists without, and there's no clear consensus on whether or not the sources are enough to merit standalone notability. With an eye to preserving the content in a place where there is no question of notability (and following the author's actions), I think a merge would be the best course of action here. ansh666 19:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Hilliard[edit]

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

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

I'm not even sure what the claim to be notability is here but, regardless, I see no evidence of the subject of this article meeting the guidelines of WP:N. The references on this page, though numerous, are all trivial and do not cover the subject of the article itself (at least not the ones I can access). There is no evidence here of the type of sustained coverage in reliable, third-party sources that would satisfy the requirements at WP:N. Canadian Paul 15:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hobbing around with notable people and being in a non-notable film are not the things that add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ The Scarlet Woman is not a not notable movie: Terence Lucy Greenidge --Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he was a member of an elitary club in Oxford which did not account for many members all of whom have a wikipedia entry. He partecipated to a movie project that is considered an important step in English movie history and he is often named by Evelyn Waugh as one of his dearest friend. Corollary importance due to the suicide of his mother for which he was called to testify and his participation to WWII. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Canadian Paul 15:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

where did I said that his notablity is inherited? he was the one in the club, he was the one in the movie, he was the one testifying in the trial for his mother, he was the one fighting during WWII...

Arden Hilliard is mentioned in: To Keep the Ball Rolling: The Memoirs of Anthony Powell [5] and Journals 1982 By Anthony Powell [6] and Infants of the spring by Anthony Powell [7] A Little Learning: The First Volume of an Autobiography by Evelyn Waugh [8] and Vile Bodies By Evelyn Waugh [9] and The Diaries of Evelyn Waugh [10] The Brideshead Generation: Evelyn Waugh and His Friends by Howard Carpenter [11] Records of Buckinghamshire, Volume 48 [12] Tom Driberg: his life and indiscretions [13] Wine and Food, Issues 9-16 [14] A. J. A. Symons, his life and speculations [15] Francis Fortescue Urquhart: A Memoir [16] The London Gazette, Part 5 [17] Oxford 1919-1939: Un creuset intellectuel ou les métamorphoses d'une génération [18] Party Going by Henry Green [19] Bright Young People: The Lost Generation of London's Jazz Age by D.J. Taylor [20] A House in Gross Disorder: Sex, Law, and the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven By Cynthia B. Herrup [21] Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay [22] Terrible queer creatures: homosexuality in Irish history [23]. It does not seem to me that his notability is "inherited". Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability is not inherited. Nothing indicates that the subject meets WP:NACTOR or other notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never asked him to be classified or mainly considered as "actor"; his experience as actor is related to a movie that has importance for its contest and creators, not for the importance of the acting. Even if the movie, AND Arden Hilliard, is listed by the British Film Institute. Nevertheless, Notability: 1) "Significant coverage" 18 independent sources, books from mainstream publishers. 2) "Reliable" 18 reliable source (books from mainstream publishers) 3) "Sources" Taylor, Carpenter, Queer studies, are secondary sources, NOT linked to Hilliard (Powell, Waugh, are linked to him) 4) "Independent of the subject" Taylor, Carpenter, Queer studies, are independent source. 5) "Presumed" 18 sources presumes he is notable. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just peripheral references that mention the person in the context of others. Nothing conveys notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"At some stage that summer I went with Arden Hilliard for two or three weeks to Corsica; an enjoyable trip though without great adventure. We crossed from Marseilles to Ajaccio, toured the island, returned to France by Bastia then to Nice. We were in a cafe a day later when Hugh Lygon came in. Seeing us, he established at a table the girl who was with him, and made for where we were sitting. 'I'm staying at Willie Maugham's villa,' Lygon said. 'I've been stuck for the afternoon with this ..." To Keep the Ball Rolling: The Memoirs of Anthony Powell - Page 114 (Not peripheral reference)

"On Sunday John Sutro came over from Oxford and invited me to lunch next day with him in his digs in Beaumont Street. That evening I recorded in my diary: 'I am more than half inclined to accept.' I did so. Monday Nov 12th I went to Oxford and contrary to my intentions stayed the night. John's party consisted of Harold Acton, Mark Ogilvie-Grant, Hugh Lygon, Robert Byron, Arden Hilliard and Richard Pares." A Little Learning: The First Volume of an Autobiography (Not peripheral reference)

"At about this stage of the evening my recollections become somewhat blurred. I got a sword fromsomewhere and gotinto Balliol somehow and was let out of awindow atsometime having mocked Arden [Hilliard] and Tony Powell and talked very seriously to Peter Quennell" The Brideshead Generation: Evelyn Waugh and His Friends (Not peripheral reference)

"Thursday,. 19. September. John Bowle obit. I always (so far as possible) avoided John Edward (as John Betjeman always called him) when we were undergraduates at Balliol, feeling sure that Matthew Ponsonby, Arden Hilliard, et al, 'taking Bowle up' as a freshman would lead to trouble." Journals 1982 (Not peripheral reference)

"Among Balliol freshmen of my first year (not, like Anthony Russell, and one or two others, already known at school) were Matthew Ponsonby, Arden Hilliard, Peter Quennell, and Pierse (then more usually Tiers') Synnott. Ponsonby (who has now inherited the peerage his father, the Labour politician, Arthur Ponsonby, was given about this time) was brother of Elizabeth Ponsonby, already something of a gossip-column heroine of what came later to be looked on as the Vile Bodies world ..." Infants of the spring - Page 158 (Not peripheral reference)

"As already mentioned, Crawford made plumbing and sanitary fittings his first priority. The School was close to The Bell public house, then owned by Mr. & Mrs. John Herbert Gladding. Waugh spent a great deal of his leisure time at The Bell, frequently eating and drinking there in preference to consuming the school meals, and entertaining his friends from London and Oxford: 4/11/1925. Enormous body arrived from Oxford in three cars Arden Hilliard, Claud Cockburn, ..." Records of Buckinghamshire - Volume 48 - Page 264 (Not peripheral reference)

Arden Hilliard British Film Institute (Not peripheral reference) Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Pride. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)--[reply]

• I don't see anything but brief mentions, @Elisa.rolle: are there no substantial biographies? Anything with 3 or 4 paragraphs that focus just on him? Being part of an elite club is fine, but I don't believe it makes him notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Point 1) "Significant coverage" of Notability explicity says it is not necessary for the subject to be the main topic of the source. In any case "To Keep the Ball Rolling: The Memoirs of Anthony Powell" cover Powell and Hilliard travel to Corsica in more than a passing sentence. The British Film Institute, despite he has actually only one role in a 1925 movie, has a page for him too. Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ильина Оля Яковна:: [24] page 86 and 87 are about Hilliard. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have considered this quite carefully, and I do think the person meets the WP:GNG policy. I will point out that 1925 was early in the history of film (first film with sound was in 1927), unlike today not just anyone could be in a film. There is the membership of a relevant elitary club, and by early 20th century standards, a reasonable amount of sources, which while generally short, are sufficient to support the article. Elisa.rolle makes strong arguments for it being kept, and has created 688 pages, I don't see any trickery or ulterior motive. The BFI listing does probably count for something, and the section in The Memoirs of Anthony Powell is quite reasonable, plus the numerous other mentions and reasonable evidence this individual was relevant in his era. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
• Keep, as per Ильина Оля Яковна. The To Keep the Ball Rolling reference is certainly non-trivial. I was involved in another recent AfD discussion relating to a an older film for which few online references could be found. The Scarlet Woman is even older, and so it's unlikely we will find more online references. So I feel that calling it a non-notable film is an invalid argument.

This looks like another possibly non-trivial mention, though I don't read French. = paul2520 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the reason why he was dismissed by Balliol College, he dressed as a nun and crossed the gates of Balliol to go to an Hypocrytes' party... but the very interesting fact is that the Dean of Balliol College closed the Hypocrytes' Club after a party where students dressed as nuns and choirboys... so it's very likely that Hilliard was one of the reasons why the Hypocrytes' was shut down. Of course this is an assumption, and we can only report facts: fact 1) Hilliard dressed as a nun and was dismissed by Balliol. fact 2) Dean of Balliol College closed Hypocrytes after a party where students dressed as nuns... Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul2520: regarding the not-notable comment on "The Scarlet Woman", I support your opinion, and would suggest to read Terence Lucy Greenidge, Evelyn Waugh and Elsa Lanchester's profiles, before saying that a movie where one was director and actor, one writer and actor and the other actress is not-notable. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge into Hypocrites' Club#Members. He can be listed last followed by: Edward Arden Hilliard (1904–1976) was... with a brief summary of his life. While it adds to the Hypocrites article to give an understanding of its members' backgrounds, Hilliard himself, lacks the notability for a stand-alone article in my view. The only substantive discussion of him is in the paragraph in the memoirs of Anthony Powell. The rest are literally mentions of his name as having attended this or that dinner in a list of names or requotes from Powell's memoirs (e.g. Un creuset intellectuel ou les métamorphoses d'une génération). His life boils down to briefly attended Oxford where he was a member of a notorious club which did indeed have some notable members. Had a small part in the amateur film The Scarlet Woman produced and written by other club members which probably has enough coverage for a brief article. However, I have been unable to find any commentary on his performance in it. Never acted again. Turned to farming after he was expelled from Oxford. Served in the army in World War II. Died in obscurity in Sussex. Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the two keep and two delete and the Redirect and Merge, I accepted the last and redirected the article to the Hypocrites' Club. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Elisa, the outcome of an AfD is based on the consensus of the discussants, not on the personal choice of the article's creator. With an even split between "delete" and "keep" opinions, this could well be closed as "no consensus" and kept by default. The discussion only started a day ago. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Wikietiquette: "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts." Anyhow, Chrissymad has now, quite rightly in my view, reverted the redirect. Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept any decision the majority would like to take. If the article will remain, then I will remove the Arden section on the Hypocrites' page, otherwise I'm fine with the redirect and merge. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:32, 28 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Brendans GAA[edit]

St Brendans GAA (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 club fails WP:GNG. Found no good sources for this. The AfD from 2009 was closed as no consensus for lack of participation. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication that the subject merits an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 20:11, 25 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disgorge (Mexican band)[edit]

Disgorge (Mexican band) (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 to be confused with the American band of the same name. Even after a Mexican specific search I could not find any significant coverage to suggest this band is notable. Also no claims to any musical notability. Mattg82 (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless... someone finds significant coverage in the Mexican media. In the outside world, one of their albums, F**k the Facts received some fairly robust reviews in longstanding metal publications like Blabbermouth (see e.g. [25]) and they were the subjects of a short independent film that got a little notice (see [26]). Not quite enough for notability unless they have become so in Mexico. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough reliable source coverage found to even justify a stub. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 25 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freehold Area Running Club[edit]

Freehold Area Running Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are no sources in the article and no claim of notability other than some local (and non-notable) races. I've searched via Google and the other listed services and can't find anything about the organization that would lend credence to a claim of notability. I'd be more than open to a merge / redirect, but the "Freehold Area" covers Freehold Borough, Freehold Township and other surrounding communities, so a target is unclear. I'm more than willing to reconsider if sources can be identified and / or an appropriate merge target designated. Alansohn (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7. Completely non notable and used as promotion. Ajf773 (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just one of thousands of local running clubs. --Michig (talk) 20:16, 25 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magadheere[edit]

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

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

I cannot find any sources that say anything about this place other than that it exists. No one seems to live here, nothing notable seems to have happened here, and it does not seem to appear on any lists of notable locations. Note that while I favor deletion, I would not oppose retargeting to Mudug.  — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find anything on this location. There is a possibility this is a translation issue and there might be or have been a real population center with a different spelling. I'm willing to re-visit this issue if there is. But punching in the earth coordinates in the article comes up with a patch of uninhabited desert.[27] --Oakshade (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I tried this directly at Geonames, and it too comes up with a spot in the middle of nowhere with no sign of structures anywhere near. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think saying this place exists is a stretch. It's a dubious dot on several robot generated maps, thats it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 22 February 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. Happy to retrieve for a potential listing at New York Mets minor league players. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Smith (baseball)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable minor league player. Contested PROD. Wizardman 19:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prod wasn’t contested. It was no longer applicable. It was a blp prod since it did not have sources. The template itself says once a reliable source is provided, it can be removed. Article has many references now.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never appeared in a top-level baseball league. He does not meet notability guidelines. Fbdave (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete He's a career minor leaguer with no significant accomplishments. Article can be recreated if he ever plays in the majors.Sandals1 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Taylor (baseball)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable minor league player. Contested PROD. Wizardman 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No evidence of notability as a baseball player. Fbdave (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not notable minor league player....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:NBASE or WP:GNG, without prejudice to recreation if the subject does meet notability criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Conners[edit]

Chad Conners (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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly an in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO as the 1995 Grabby Awards category ("Best Newcomer") is not significant and well known. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Consensus is that the Grabby Awards do not meet the well-known and significant industry award standard for WP:PORNBIO, and so the performer fails that guideline. Fails WP:BASIC without significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable porn actor, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Grabby Awards were given by a local Chicago magazine, and relentlessly spammed yearsw ago by a now-banned COI promotional editor. As Gene93k accurately notes, they do not establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:17, 21 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Garteig[edit]

Michael Garteig (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: NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has several junior and college awards, but all below the threshold of NHOCKEY, and I cannot find enough to build a case for GNG.18abruce (talk) 21:36, 21 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George R. Ursul[edit]

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

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

Article is sourced to ancestry.com and does not establish why Ursul is notable. A search on Google News finds nothing. A search on Google Books finds his name mentioned only in bibliographies citing a book he wrote, as well as a three line mention in the Harvard alumni newsletter. Nothing on newspapers.com. A search on JSTOR finds a few papers he authored but nothing about him specifically. He does not appear to have an H-Index that would qualify him under NPROF, nor has he held a named chair or anything similar. Chetsford (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. Acnetj (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete However the delete rationale is wrong. The article is sourced to www.familysearch.org, a wholly owned website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is totally different than the commercial family history website ancestry.com. However, in theory the depository location used to find a document is not very important. There may be some sources findable through familysearch.org that would pass as reliable sources, although most are either user generated or primary and thus not useful to establish notability. The main exception is their obituary database, but even that aims to be very broad. In this case, the cited document is the Social Security Death Index entry, apparently for Ursul, which is a primary source for his death of the level that would exist for every person in the US who someone can claim death benefits from social security for, which in no way adds towards notability. The sources cited in the nomination also in no way add up to notability as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like a non-notable historian. No notable works. (feel free to ping me to reconsider if you find notability that I missed.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC) My error, I missed the 3 book reviews. Weak Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. He was a Fulbright scholar, one of his (edited) books has multiple published reviews, he had an obituary published in a major (but local) newspaper, and he was listed in a specialist who's-who publication. I've added more sources to the article documenting these things. It's still a weak case for WP:PROF, but I think there's a better case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I've added another source which reports a lecture by Ursul and has a ~150 word/3 inch profile of Ursul in the Lowell Sun. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The book reviews and newspaper articles collectively satisfy WP:BASIC. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- He looks to me like a NN history lecturer, who did not get a doctorate and published little. Even if he edited a significant collection of academic essays, which was well reviewed, it is not enough to push him over the threshold into notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The book that was reviewed was a festschrift, which, even if it contained notable essays, does not give much support to the notability of the scholar who co-edited the collection. Ursal looks like a non-notable historian. No notable works. No other claim to notability, although he was an active layman in his denomination.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any claim of meeting an SNG, and the WP:MILL obituary/local coverage of a speech at a church is a terribly weak claim for meeting GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He looks like he just falls short of notability. I checked Google scholar for scholar profile's he's got very little on there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:30, 27 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elm (programming language)[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chris-martin (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There are no secondary sources as references; the reference list consists only of links to Elm documentation, with the exception of two which are the Redux.js documentation and Vue.js documentation. Doing a google on Elm did not bring about any notable references. Even though the language has a passing mention in Sitepoint which is not a reputable reference nothing suggests that this is any more notable than, say, PureScript. The language is reasonably popular, but popularity isn't the same thing as nontrivial coverage in several reliable sources, which Wikipedia requires. Chris-martin (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Enough new secondary sources have been presented in this discussion to convince me. I think we should apply the Template:Primary sources template and make sure some of these better references make their way into the article. Chris-martin (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's this upcoming book, and Czaplicki's dissertation has been cited a bit. The most relevant citations look like [28] and [29] and [30]. Finally, I think [31] and [32] decisively establish significant coverage in reliable sources. Υπογράφω (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here's Pivotal Labs talking about their use of Elm. Here's another from NoRedInk. Elm, while relatively new, is gaining popularity and Wikipedia should keep the article and even expand on it. Bytemanpacifist (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 February 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)} 17:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Pepper[edit]

David A. Pepper (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:POLOUTCOMES: local political party chairs, municipal politicians, and failed candidates for higher officer are not inherently notable. (In the previous AfD of nine years ago, the arguments advanced for Keep were that Pepper had inherent notability due to losing a large election or holding a municipal office; one argument was that mayors of major cities are notable under POLOUTCOMES, therefore, councilors must also be notable. Since that AfD, this has since been clarified as not the case.)

Per WP:NOTINHERITED, the fact he is the son of the CEO of Procter & Gamble does not make him notable.

In the absence of political notability, would need to pass the WP:GNG, however, all sources in article are routine coverage related to his two failed campaigns for Auditor, and AG. A BEFORE search on Google News finds him appearing in a handful of places but only in the form of one-line reaction quotes. Nothing on JSTOR, newspapers.com, or Google Books. Chetsford (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Members of the state legislature have articles no matter how inconsequential they are. Leaders of state parties like this person and his Republican counterpart, Jane Timken, are at least as notable as those people. Roseohioresident (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Timken is also a good candidate for AFD. "are at least as notable as those people" Is this a policy based argument drawing from WP:NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES, or a personal opinion? This seems to be a variation of the argument extended in the original AFD that, because mayors qualify under POLOUTCOMES, councilors should; "because legislators qualify under POLOUTCOMES, party chairs should". While this might be a valid argument to make in a proposal to amend the notability guidelines, an individual AfD is for purposes of determining if an article qualifies under the guidelines as they currently exist - not the guidelines we wish existed. Chetsford (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is personal opinion. Policy is silly on wikipedia a lot of the time. This article gets five to ten page views most days. Hit the random article button, and most articles have fewer. Select a random state legislator and you'll get fewer. I think wikipedia should give the reader what she is looking for, not some arbitrary definition of notability. Roseohioresident (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course it is personal opinion. Policy is silly on wikipedia a lot of the time." Okay. We may just have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass our notability guidelines. Legislature members create actual laws, party leaders have no actual power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We keep articles about legislators because they actually pass laws. State political party chairs can get articles if they can be properly referenced to enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, but are not handed an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist — but the amount of coverage being shown here is not enough to get him over GNG, because two of the four sources are routine coverage of his campaigns for races he didn't win, a third is routine coverage of his campaign for a county-level office that he did win but doesn't constitute an automatic NPOL pass in and of itself, and the fourth is covering him only in the context of writing a book that isn't notable enough to get him over WP:AUTHOR. This would be keepable if somebody could show some evidence of a GNG-passing volume of coverage for his work in the role of party chair itself — but merely being able to show that a few sources exist about otherwise non-notable aspects of his prior activity, while showing no sourcing that's actually covering him in the context of the notability claim itself, is not how you make a party chair notable enough. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep May meet WP:AUTHOR, in addition to being a councilmember of a regional city, commissioner of a large county, and chair of a state-level political party. (See this review in Politico Magazine and Cincinnati.com of his book The People’s House.) (The subject's personal site shows a longer list of RS reviews). While any one of his activities may not meet WP:GNG by itself, it is hard to see that in total, the subject would fail the notability guidelines. --Enos733 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he passes my standards for lawyers. He was a city council member of a large city, county commissioner, ran for mayor and state AG, and has been state chairman of a major party in a crucial swing state. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - he passes your personal notability standards? Chetsford (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets GNG when one considers status as head of a state party organization with status as a published-and-reviewed novelist. Sufficient coverage to support encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the local political offices he was elected to in the Cincinnati area, plus the coverage of his book (in outlets such as the Wall Street Journal) is enough non-trivial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as noted above, has held offices that would substantiate him as notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:32, 27 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VidtoMP3[edit]

VidtoMP3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable web site, 44 unique Google results. Prod tag removed by creator. ... discospinster _talk 17:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after a couple web searches, does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG SportingFlyer (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - not notable. Acnetj (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonchiriya[edit]

Sonchiriya (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)

Blatant Crystal balling. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Hasn't started shooting so serious WP:CRYSTAL problem. Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now per WP:NFF, principal photography has apparently not yet begun. Sam Sailor 13:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lady of South Africa[edit]

Second Lady of South Africa (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)

"Second Lady of South Africa" appears to be a made-up title. No sources for the title are provided, no official reference is found and a google search turns up only 19 hits -- all related to WP mirrors. (Note: Although this term was speedy deleted last year as a hoax, I'm creating an AFD this time to gain consensus of opinion.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I also couldn't find any hits on this. London Hall (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not a notability claim in and of itself — every single person in this list, with just one exception, has an article because they got "promoted" from "Second Lady" to First Lady, not because "Second Lady" per se, and even the one exception is (a) a person who still has another notability claim besides "second ladydom" itself, and (b) a man. And even the sources don't use the phrase "second lady" at all — they verify the names of people listed here, but neither of them identifies their subject as a former "second lady" at all. Just because the United States treats "second lady" as an actual concept within its political culture doesn't mean every other country on earth automatically gets the same treatment — we would need to see sources which actually identified and discussed "Second Lady of South Africa" as a thing before we could keep an article about it or a list of the purported second ladies. And even if better sourcing could be found to actually keep this, we would still have to move it to an ungendered title given that there's a man listed in it. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I didn't really fair any better. Agree with the above that this would need sources treating the subject explicitly and in depth, and not just the application of a general concept to a particular group of people, which is probably well into WP:OR territory. GMG^talk 18:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all editors above, the title seems not to be used at all in sources. Sam Sailor 13:17, 25 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carissa Springett[edit]

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

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

Non-notable Thai actress and models. Only 5 mentions for her at Google News and no local article. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- meets WP:Actors, had significant roles in a number of Thai television shows Cait.123 (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: She is a notable actress from Thailand. Quite a bit of coverage about her has been translated and published in English sources, including interviews and celebrity news. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 03:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39] --Paul_012 (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 01:56, 20 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bishop (musician)[edit]

Christopher Bishop (musician) (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)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG, and nothing indicates he passes WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious autobiography that doesn't meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and does not qualify for inclusion under WP:ANYBIO. Sam Sailor 13:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - suspiciously self promotional - he has had an interesting music career (rubbing shoulders with some greates), but there is little RS here to support him as notable enough to get his own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of current ACC basketball announcers[edit]

List of current ACC basketball announcers (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)

An unreferenced list that rarely gets updated and more importantly fails the notability guideline for stand-alone lists. Much like List of current ACC football announcers. Sam Sailor 16:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; fails WP:NOTESAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - list that doesn't meet requirements of WP:LISTN, won't find this list in any kind of signficant coverage, coverage will be mentions that are specific to relevant broadcasters for that game or team only. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and for the same reasons mentioned in similarly nominated article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current ACC football announcers. Ajf773 (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rikster2 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The word "current" makes this a killer for me. Trivia. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emergent Communication[edit]

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

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

Delete as per WP:NEO. The current sourcing does not appear to even mention the term. Searches turned up a few trivial mentions of the term, but they did not appear to be about the subject which is covered in this article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Marketroid neologism. The "references" weren't — the whole section was irrelevant news items with a bonus of WP:DAILYMAIL. Search results are false positives. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete New age waffle Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 20 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East of England Broadband Network[edit]

East of England Broadband Network (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, WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:NOTAD and WP:UK. Promotional content in areas, as well of made-up things somewhat. Needs to be deleted since is not made very well, as well of too simple English. E2BN in not-notable is any sense. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:9158:3C4B:7629:188F (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh666 20:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN. 7 employees, no refs other than primary or routine. I thought about redirect before seeing that had no worthwhile refs either. Szzuk (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. I don't mind if a redirect is subsequently created to Regional Broadband Consortium. Sam Sailor 12:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Killer Entertainment Presents Pop Goes Hardcore[edit]

Ghost Killer Entertainment Presents Pop Goes Hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication it passes WP:NMUSIC, and searches turned up virtually nothing on this promotional compilation album, so it doesn't pass WP:GNG. There are two more in the series which I will be including in this AFD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons stated above:

Ghost Killer Entertainment Presents Pop Goes Hardcore Volume 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ghost Killer Entertainment Presents Disney Goes Hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable compilation albums that fail WP:NALBUM. Sam Sailor 12:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airi & Meiri[edit]

Airi & Meiri (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 BLP for two subjects (a duo) who lack sources that discuss them directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, passing mentions, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Do not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre.

First AfD closed as "no consensus" in 2009; the second as "speedy keep" since it's been less than a month from the first nomination. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]