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) 00:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobscot[edit]

Nobscot (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 reliable independent sources for notability. Two minor awards, and a great deal of publicity from press releases. (some of the references are even from prweb) The most substantial item, in entrepreneur.com, is written by the co-founder of the company. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see scads of press releases and a couple stories in Honolulu Star-Advertiser which is local coverage and therefore not helpful for notability. WP:TNT, start over at future date if better stuff exists. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Bri. This has long been maintained by a COI account--possibly paid--and bears the public relations scars to prove it. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - no independant RS for this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:12, 1 March 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. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 33[edit]

Exit 33 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFO. Paradoctor (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has reviews in horror film reliable sources such as Dread Central here, Aint it Cool News here Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't see any substantial RS for this... seems to be a low budget straight, no name actors or crew, straight to DVD effort. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reviews I gave are substantial coverage in reliable sources for horror films as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources and the film is also of interest for the first main performance of Kane Hodder who played Jason Vorhees in the Friday 13th films Atlantic306 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't see why it wouldn't pass WP:GNG and does appear to pass WP:NFILM. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:18, 2 March 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) 00:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leena Hiltunen[edit]

Leena Hiltunen (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 pornographic actress, No evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:ENT & significant RS coverage not found. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where would we find coverage? According to the available sources, Hiltunen appeared in a total of 2 films, both in the 1970s. Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should be noted that Fäbodjäntan is probably the best known Swedish porno movie from that period, has quite a "cult" status and is still regularilly reissued on DVD. /FredrikT (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No RS - listings on two actor databases, which have very little information on them, no other RS. Fails WP:ENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 07:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched quite a bit for sources about her and have found nothing. Hiltunen left the business quite abrubtly after her two movies according to Sundgren, N.P. (1984). Moster Svea i tidsspegeln (in Swedish). Askelin & Hägglund. p. 155. ISBN 978-91-7684-045-0.. A post (that sounded genuine) on a Swedish forum mentioned that a journalist working on a newspaper article about Swedish vintage porn had tracked down Hiltunen some time in the 90s. She had refused to give an interview, but said she regretted ever getting involved in the industry. So, not very likely that we ever get this article up to GNG/BASIC. FredrikT is correct, a redirect to Fäbodjäntan would be an appropriate navigational help. Sam Sailor 01:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, no verifiable source, does not pass WP:GNG or PORNBIO. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:20, 2 March 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. Significant improvements to the article since the nomination. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mo (Korean surname)[edit]

Mo (Korean surname) (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)

Merge with Mao (surname): Many Korean surnames are sinitic in nature, and has a corresponding Chinese surname. We can turn those Chinese surname pages to an Asian one, containing all the applicable surnames. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Why should we make into one article? And it is impossible. Because a Korean surname doesn't contains only one Hanja. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And you, User:Garam, have cited no sources that attest to the fact that Mo is actually a Korean surname. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I add references now. --Garam (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article has sufficient sources focused specifically on the Korean surname to demonstrate its separate notability regardless of its linguistic origins in another country. Additionally, the merge proposal doesn't work because "Mo" in Korean could correspond either to Chinese Mou (surname) (牟, doesn't even have an article) or Mao (surname). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:41, 3 March 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Money[edit]

Positive Money (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)

Activist organization -- the article is sourced to almost entirely to primary sources and opinion pieces, with promotional narratives, off-topic material, and announcements of future initiatives of the organization. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Or rather, "edit then keep". The "edit" part is because the page has been radically changed in the past 48 hours by a well meaning but clearly inexperienced editor that appears unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. It is unfortunate that SPECIFICO has chosen to try and get the page deleted rather than simply revert it back to it's previous, healthier state. With regard primary sources - it should be noted that there are some very high quality secondary sources that are referenced, including The Wall St Journal, New Statesman, The Guardian, the BBC. Reissgo (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only secondary sources are cited for trivia or from press release announcements of various sorts. No discussion of significance or expert analysis of anything notable. It's a self-prmoting advocacy group -- including promotional Wikipedia editing from all appearances. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is true of most of the sources, however at least one of the Guardian articles is more than this -- the coverage seems to be nearly but not quite "No discussion of significance", IMO FrankP (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article, because the arguments presented by Specifico (links of interest?) to delete it are simply not correct. There is no policy to delete all think tanks articles.
  Adèle Fisher (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Could you show where Specifico has claimed there is such a policy about think-tanks? And why you believe the arguments presented are not correct. Questioning notability and sources is valid. FrankP (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For the moment, to enable it to be improved if possible. Then perhaps its notability (which I do believe is marginal at best) can be properly re-assessed. I partially agree with Reissgo that recent edits are a little haphazard, but would not support simply reverting as there has also been some relevant material added. FrankP (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable and quite well sourced: just needs some improvement. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Notability should be made clear in the leading sentences or paragraphs, e.g. with clear statements about membership or influence. I find that unclear now, since the founder and the international movement are not plainly notable or clearly described. Sources are strong enough. I am unsure about deletion; I don't want to read all the sources or make other readers do it. -- econterms (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell the sources turn out to be blog pieces by non-notable authors, including some in otherwise acceptable newspapers, or they're primary-sourced to Positive Money's own website, or they're incidental snippets precipitated by press releases or other non-noteworthy events. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about notability - I'll just point out that if you do a search in Hansard for the phrase "positive money" (in quotes), you will see that this organisation has been mentioned seven times in the UK parliament. Additionally both the former and current directors have been a talking head on the BBC and other channels on a regular basis talking about banking issues. They have shared panel discussions with the likes of the Financial Times chief economist Martin Wolf, the head of the FSA Lord Adair Turner, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Ed Balls... Meetings that they have organised have been addressed by MPs from at least three different political parties including the current head of the green party. I could go on in this vein if required. There is no question of a lack of notability of the organisation. Reissgo (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources for the article seem relevant and not "primary sourced" or "blogs" -- Wall Street Journal Bloomberg Guardian New Statesman FrankP (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The last one is just a non-notable opinion piece in the New Statesman. Th others don't seem to describe anything of much significance. "FT chief economist Martin Wolf" is a newspaper reporter, not a notable economist. etc etc. There's no doubt they've cobbled together some public relations exposure (including Wikipedia editors from time to time), but I don't see anything that we would find notable. I mean, placards on the street is not all that uncommon. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that Martin Wolf is a newspaper reporter and not a notable economist is utter nonsense. As a response to the 2008 crash, the UK government set up a five man "Independent Commission on Banking" - Martin Wolf was on the panel. He was not there as a journalist. Reissgo (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view of a UK campaign group, to get a write-up the WSJ is not an everyday occurrence. You do seem to be straining too hard to minimise these reliable sources, instead of seeing them in perspective. The notability is not huge but it is not non-existent either. FrankP (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The subject is trivially evidently notable. (It needs some serious work over, for sure, but that is another matter.) And notability if, of course, an attribute that's assessed irrespective of the subject's worth per se. Damn you, Herostratus!.. :-) The Gnome (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see an advocacy group with a well-run PR campaign, and little more. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:08, 3 March 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 Chicago plan. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Program for Monetary Reform[edit]

A Program for Monetary Reform (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)

Appears to be a hoax or urban legend. No secondary RS in article or Google search. Being promoted by fringe monetary policy advocacy groups. SPECIFICO talk

I've just had a look at our The Chicago Plan Revisited article and it appears to be just about entirely primary-sourced and OR. I removed a few of the blog-sourced and misrepresented sections of text and there's not much left of any substance. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why do you believe it's a hoax? Did some research on it and haven't found anyone disputing it, in fact found a journal article possibly mentioning it: [1] SportingFlyer (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's disputing it because the article is not real. Academics don't cite or discuss fake articles. The story that this is a key policy document written by one of the top economists of his day, Fisher, but never published and never cited until this mysterious copy showed up -- ostensibly from a single obscure library -- strains credulity. Hundreds of University libraries would have retained copies of a significant document by eminent monetary economist Fisher. And the context in which it was "discovered" is to bolster a fringe activist campaign. Not in the course of research, library cataloguing, or any other plausible routine. Note that there has been discussion of 100% reserve banking from time to time, including by Fisher. But that is not the same as the claim as to the existence or content of this article. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here, from 1993 (before all this got started), page 714: [2] (note the citations) Also here from 1996: [3] The dates are important since the sources show this was "found" by the guy mentioned in the article around 1995. I don't think it's fake, but I do think it's been blown out of proportion. Not sure what to recommend on deletion grounds. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/merge - Looks real to me. Its certainly a Fringe topic within economics, and probably shouldn't be covered in any depth in an article like Fractional reserve banking, but we do have an article about Fisher's proposals, such as Full-reserve banking and Chicago plan. This article could redirect to Fisher, or better, to Chicago plan. To me it seems that most of the citations to this paper, and there are a lot, couches the paper in a discussion of Fisher's ideas and isn't really about the paper. I don't think the paper passes NBOOK, and we don't usually have articles about every academic manuscript that has a dozen or two citations. I could maybe be convinced that the subject is suitable for an encyclopedia, I think better would be some energy put into those other articles as merge destinations. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Chicago plan where it is already briefly mentioned as a followup proposal. If the editors of the Journal of Law and Economics did not think it is a hoax, who am I to argue. Irving Fisher and the 100 Percent Reserve Proposal ("In the fall of 1938, joined by Paul Douglas, Frank Graham, Earl Hamilton, Willford King, and Charles Whittlesey, he [Fisher] drafted a five- page statement, 'A Program for Monetary Reform.' During the winter it was widely circulated, and in March 1939 it was sent to the president ..."). Including the full text of the memo is a copyright violation, however, isn't it? I flagged it but didn't blank it out of indecision. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a hoax - The Chicago Plan & New Deal Banking Reform , Allen, William R. "Irving Fisher and the 100 percent reserve proposal." The Journal of Law and Economics 36.2 (1993): 703-717.. Seems to be widely referred to. Merge is possible to Chicago plan - but it would require a re-titling there, and extensive work.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge perhaps to [Chicago plan]]. It does not look like a hoax to me, but like an academic paper that never saw the light of day. I note that four of the 6 authors are notable enough to have articles. However, we cannot keep an article on every pamphlet that may have been written. It may become significant in the history of its topic, but I doubt it merits a free-standing WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with [Chicago plan] - agree with Peterkingiron's reasoning. Reissgo (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Chicago plan (where it merits a section) with which it shares almost everything. This is an easy one. And whether the subject itself, i.e. the proposal, is with or without any real merit, or whether it's a hoax or not, is irrelevant. This is a notable subject but the material is already up there in the Chicago proposal article. -The Gnome (talk) 05:32, 28 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) 00:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Medicines Society[edit]

Natural Medicines Society (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 indy sources; original website was just a ISP hosted website; Charity shut in 2006; no sign it was ever notable KylieTastic (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: they did have a full website in the beginning www.the-nms.org.uk but I guess moved to www.thenms.demon.co.uk later to save money KylieTastic (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment simply typing "Natural Medicines Society" brings up a number of mentions, including listings in 1990s book directories of pharmaceutical organisations. I'm not saying it's notable, as most of the sources only mentioned the organisation in passing, but there's sources there to sift through. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the same thing, I went looking for sources but could not find anything more than a minimal mention, the most notable thing I found was a mention in notes for a house of lord committee that showed two members had link to the Society as president and patron this which I've added to the article. KylieTastic (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable, and may not exist now.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 3 March 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. Michig (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of conservatism in the United States[edit]

Bibliography of conservatism in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Just a list of books, mostly non notable and unrefenced/original research. The list inclusion has all the hallmarks of an indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have been the second-most active editor on that page, and I think that material is appropriate, and reasonably well selected. The list is selected based on the evaluations and recommendations for further reading made by multiple scholars, both liberal and conservative. Google scholar lists over 22,000 scholarly books and articles published since 2014 on the topic of American conservatism. see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&q=american+conservatism&btnG= This article lists only 125 titles, which are grouped so that the particular subcategories (like Biography) have a limited number of useful titles. There are 18 books listed under biography, and they are scholarly studies of Buckley, Schlafly, Nock, Smith, Russell, Burnham, Helms, Taft, Mencken, Voegelin, Reagan, Meyer, Hoover, and Whittaker Chambers. That is what selectivity looks like. My approach was to start with the bibliographies of the major surveys (listed under "Surveys:), check the book reviews and the scholarly journals, and check number of times an an item is cited in Google scholar. For example, Google scholar shows that the Rossiter book is been cited over 400 times by other scholars. So not only is it mentioned, but I went through its recommended readings as well. I also work through "America: History and Life " Which gives abstracts of scholarly articles and books dealing with the United States and Canada . It lists 3086 Different publications under the subject heading of conservatism. So what we have is a highly selected list, based primarily on the scholarly guides, bibliographies in the books on conservatism, and Books recommended in the review section of scholarly journals. The critic who wants the entire article removed claims that the books are "mostly non notable and unrefenced/original research. " Actually, The titles were mostly selected by Allitt, Critchlow, Filler, Frohnen, and Schneider, in the books listed in the "Surveys" section, plus the items highlighted by the authors in the "Historiography" section (they Brinkley, Burns, Cowie and Salvatore, Dochuk, Kazin, Lewis, McGirr, Phillips-Fein, Ponce de Leon, Ribuffo, and Zelizer. These historiographers are in fact mostly liberals who are often sharply critical of conservatism. The editor who recommended deletion is User:Ajf773, who is from New Zealand, and perhaps is unaware of the intellectual ferment over conservatism in the United States in recent decades. In the last couple days he has been indiscriminately listing numerous articles for deletion on a wide range of different topics such as List of Chip 'n' Dale merchandise and List of Super Bowl jersey colors worn--Well, okay, I agree with him on those--but my complaint is that he shows no familiarity with the large major topic of American conservatism. That requires someone who's actually read some of the appropriate books and articles which appears from major publishers and in major journals. Rjensen (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rjensen: from WP:WikiProject Bibliographies, the article should feature an explicit, discriminate inclusion criteria and the lead should establish the notability of the bibliography by citing at least two sources that demonstrate that relevant books, journals and other references on a specific topic have been discussed as a group., both of which the article lacks. Do you believe that this is remediable based on your methodology for inclusion? Acebulf (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point--I expanded the lead to include your concerns. The 15 articles listed under "Historiography" all discuss the bibliography. Rjensen (talk)
• Comment I don't want to make an WP:OSE argument since Wikipedia does host a number of bibliographies like Pershing missile bibliography, Bibliography of Irish rail transport, List of books about the politics of science, et cetera. (I'm not sure they need to be on Wikipedia, either.) The problem I have with the list is it has no specific category for inclusion - an indiscriminate list as per nom - but possibly best brought as a policy discussion or a bulk delete (see Bibliography on American Communism. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral or Close and move discussion I think this should be a policy discussion on bibliographic articles, better held on WP:Village Pump/Policy than on here. Acebulf (talk)00:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would we need a policy discussion on bibliographies, just because the nominator is unfamiliar with them? The nominator can either clarify what about this specific bibliography poses a problem for them (the current kitchen sink rationale has a low signal to noise ratio; clearly "unreferenced" is meaningless as stated, given that this is itself a list of references), or do some reading at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies and ask some questions there. postdlf (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Postdlf: If I understand the policy discussed on the Wikiproject, there should still be evidence of the notability of a particular set of works put into the bibliography from coverage of the references itself as being notable. Does this mean that there should be non-trivial coverage of the bibliography as a subject per-se? I think such lists should at the very least include some sort of indication that the works listed therein are significant to the subject matter. Acebulf (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I expanded the lede to explain the selection criteria--there are books and articles recommended in the books and articles listed under "Surveys" and "Historiography." The latter is 15 articles that each look at what are the most useful titles for specific subtopics. I cite Kim Phillips-Fein who argued in a British journal in January 2018, "an entire field of scholarship has emerged to interrogate the roots, development, and persistence of modern American conservatism." This is a bibliography of that field. Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that does good on asserting notability. Well done. Acebulf (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the new changes (see above) reflecting the methodology and notability asserted, I don't see the need to delete the article. Acebulf (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – While we have a whole category related to similar topics (yes, OSE), the listing here can be culled down to notable works or works by notable authors. – S. Rich (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We have lists of notable works and we have bibliographies that have a different inclusion criteria. I've come to understand the latter to be rather controversial (see the somewhat recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Oakland, California, deleted largely for NOTCATALOGUE/INDISCRIMINATE reasons based on it including non-notable books). I considered starting a bigger policy discussion thereafter, but figured I'd wait to see if those rationales led to more deletion of such lists (after all, there is also an argument that there just aren't enough works about Oakland, which is not an argument that applies here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Whether or not the article needs changes, I don't think that deletion is the answer, as this is certainly an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article and there aren't serious issues (e.g. defamation). Also, subjectively, it seems like a reasonably well-selected list to me. Orser67 (talk) 08:04, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Nelson[edit]

Helena Nelson (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 think it fails to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Largely talks about her own publications that she manages. It is decently written and has citations hence the AfD route. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 19:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be a lot of web sourcing and article itself seems to be a CV with a lot of OR. SPA-created. May be vanity. Agricola44 (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• NeutralDelete borderline promotional; clearly fails the GNG The article has been significantly improved since my original !vote. That said, I'm not sure even a significant improvement is enough to overcome the standards of GNG as much of the sources added are short PR bios in "About" sections, fleeting and incidental mentions that don't offer biographical depth, or non-WP:INDEPENDENT. Nonetheless, I'm not as entirely confident this is as overt as a failure as I was initially and will hold-back on !voting to see the continued input of other editors. Chetsford (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, unlikely that this article is a "vanity" page as alluded to by Agricola44 above, it was created by a new editor as part of Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events/Lost Poets of Scotland Editathon, 4 1/2hours later up for deletion, it would have been nice if the nominator, Classicwiki, had contacted the contact/trainer of the event, lirazelf, and discussed any concerns before nominating. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coolabahapple and lirazelf, I had no way of knowing that this article was part of the Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events/Lost Poets of Scotland Editathon, as it is not mentioned in the edit logs notes or in the talk page for the article. So in quickly reviewing the edit log, it just looks like lirazelf moved it from the Draft space. As I noted, the article was decently sourced and since it had been moved from a draft space I chose the AfD route instead of the harsher CSD or PROD. As part of the AfD process, PayTheLibrarians was notified that they can advocate why the article belongs on Wikipedia. I honestly don't like to bite the newbies and I apologize if I did, but there are 4015 total unreviewed pages on Wikipedia as of now. Much less than a year ago, but still a substantial amount. At the end of the day, I still think the article still fails to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, the notability of this author/poet needs to be better established. If that means going back to the Draft space or getting a significant revision I am all for it. Again sorry if I stepped on any toes, the more people editing and creating for Wikipedia the merrier. I had no clue that this was part of some organized effort. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Classicwiki, no probs, agree difficult to know that it was part of a GLAM event, it would be good if "GLAMeditors" tagged any GLAM article talkpage with a link to the relevant event page. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Classicwiki & Coolabahapple, thanks for spotting the editathon connection - I've just added the editathon tag, better late than never. (I've taken to adding these on GLAM event articles recently, this one slipped through the net.) Any help appreciated! Thanks for the understanding.Lirazelf (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is borderline GNG. I'd like to keep and work on it. Her press has won the Michael Marks Awards for Poetry Pamphlets and should be mentioned prominently in the article so of course the article will "talk about her own publications that she manages". Her poetry seems to have been published around. This should be kept. I fail to see vanity or promo anywhere. The creator is not a SPA, they are someone who participated in an event to create the article. Elektricity (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• hi Elektricity, actually, Happenstance Press didn't win but it did make the short list of the Michael Marks Publishers' Award (also see here) which is still pretty good. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple I think it was shortlisted twice and won once. http://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poetry/publishers/happenstance-press Elektricity (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oops, serves me right for not fully reading Michael Marks Awards for Poetry Pamphlets article, which has one of its poets on the 2013 Poetry Pamphlets shortlist, another winning in 2015, and HappenStance shortlisting the Publishers' Award in 2009 and winning in 2010:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) *and another of its poets on the 2016 Poetry Pamphlets shortlist, see here:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd argue that the poet does meet WP:GNG although this could be better established - I've added Nelson's inclusion in the "Modern Scottish Women Poets" anthology to contribute to this. Can also confirm that it's not a vanity / SPA, have now added the editathon tag on the talk page to make this more clear. Lirazelf (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now also added additional information about early publications and an award. Lirazelf (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that the poet does meet WP:GNG and in particular her work "How (not) To Get Your Poetry Published" seems to be pretty influential in supporting other developing or lesser known poets to get published. She is an award winning poet, works as a critic, runs a (seemingly successful) small press publishing the work of other poets, has performed at the Scottish Poetry Library, the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and the StAnza Festival. She has also been an invited guest at a 2016 University of Edinburgh academic event - the Scottish Women's Poetry Symposium. I agree with talk that some of this detail needs to be added to her article to improve it. Ammienoot (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nelson is well known for her poetry, mentorship of others and for her reviews of the work of others which have appeared in many notable journals. Her review essay (2013) in the Dark Horse poetry journal has been well-received and attracted follow-up articles from other notable writers and poets such as Kei Miller who have applauded her thoughtful treatise on the subject.Stinglehammer (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The descriptions in the article have been improved. There is now a range of sources included and these show that this individual is well regarded in the poetry publishing community in Scotland. I think notability has been established when judged by WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the key things are winning (jointly) the Jerwood Aldeburgh Prize and her press winning the Michael Marks Publishers' Award. These push her into notable for me. I think the section on Poetry in the Age of Hype could be cut though - not clear that it received significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When I first looked at this article I was doubtful, but the recent work done on the page would seem to show that there are a range of source that would suggest the subject is notable. Dunarc (talk) 19:55, 2 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ionuț Budișteanu[edit]

Ionuț Budișteanu (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 believe it is a major mistake for deleting this Wikipedia page. Besides of winning the ISEF award, Ionut got recognition from Times Magazine, Forbes Europe nominating him in 2016 as one of the Top 30 under 30 in Europe in the category of industry, The Financial Times and many other international publications recognized Ionut as a young leader in the IT industry. At age of 24, he founded a Peer to Peer digital currency called WebDollar. He finished Singularity University in Silicon Valley and founded two startups VisionBot and SkyHub. MIT Lincoln Laboratory named an Asteroid with his name 28854 Budisteanu. I am very confident that this young man will achieve many great things abroad and in Romania.

Regarding his research. It is not important to have "scientific publication" to get really successful. Satoshi Nakamoto published a PDF file that changed the entire world for real on the internet and it was never presented on any academic forums, etc. Recently I saw that Ionut started a digital currency project and for instance look at his amazing White Paper where it shows great talent in Computer Science that nobody could deny. http://webdollar.io/public/doc/WebDollar-White-Paper.pdf

Again, I truly believe it was a bad decision from you to delete this wikipedia page because Ionut is a very talented young man with all the chances to change the world in one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.207.38 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a WP:BLP1E for winning the ISEF award, if at all. Not an academic, not a single scientific publication or relevant mention. Mostly romanian local media in sources. Article is written overly positive, maybe a tribute or (self-)promotion for startup. AlpacaWiki (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AlpacaWiki (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - promotional piece about a non-notable individual whose rather routine achievements are hyped by several circular reports in the sensationalist press. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not call Time (magazine) to be "sensationalist press": http://time100.time.com/2013/11/12/the-16-most-influential-teens-of-2013/slide/ionut-budisteanu/ Razvan Socol (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough. But one paragraph of coverage as part of a “16 most influential teenagers” section (at least half of whom lack articles here) is not conclusive evidence of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possibly WP:TOOSOON. Winning ISEF isn't the type of thing that guarantees a Wikipedia article, and everything else is trivia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:48, 3 March 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) 19:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made In The A.M. Tour[edit]

Made In The A.M. Tour (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)

Just realized, crystal balling, not date even for it to start. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the obvious reasons: Wikidpedia is not a crystal ball. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: this has got to be a hoax, surely? The album of the same name is already three years old, and the band has been in hiatus for a while, with no signs of getting back together. You'd think if a band as big as One Direction were going on their first tour in three years, there might be something in the news about it, but there's nothing. Richard3120 (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:09, 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) 00:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HR Aqib Hameed[edit]

HR Aqib Hameed (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 did nominate this for speedy deletion, but there is an (unsourced) claim of notability. Best Speaker Award, I have no idea what it was for (or what kind of award), and doubt it is enough to establish notability. But it is just enough to avoid a speedy delete request. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete non-notable person. The claims are false IMO as no such awards exist.  samee  ^talk 21:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from the article:Many audience listen to his speeches through his facebook page and youtube channel. YouTube stats say it all.  samee  ^talk 21:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, and it does not matter how many listen or watch, what matters is if RS have.Slatersteven (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to quote "34 subscribers", THAT IS NOT A LOT.Slatersteven (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I 'think' I also meant exactly the same thing.  samee  ^talk 23:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG. --Saqib (talk) 04:48, 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. Michig (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tongil Tours[edit]

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

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

As per the AFD on Lupine Travel this is another non-notable travel company with the article being created largely for promotional purposes, created by a conflict of interest editor who is the subject of the article. There is only one source stated in the article which actually refers specifically to the company in question. Most of the sources include only a brief reference to the company and cover North Korean travel in general, or they are about the individual as a person who founded the company and his experience in North Korea. The service they promote of "language study tours" in North Korea is not unique, there are several other firms offering this- TF92 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. Perhaps something could be merged into Tourism in North Korea. There are related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lupine Travel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Pioneer Tours. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable organization due to a lack of independent sources. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The refs are almost entirely passing mentions, sufficient to prove that the company exists but not enough to provide any further notable information. There's some coverage of the company's founder (the Huffington Post article), but again the company is only mentioned in passing. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note- A Conflict of Interest concerned anonymous IP address has since attempted to edit the article adding more sources about himself [4]. The IP address traces to Australia, which is the location of the company owner in question (without revealing his identity as per wikipedia policy). As this article concerns his only edit, we can assume it is certainly that person. As according to wikipedia policy, I have reverted these edits to prevent the owner of the business from attempting to influence the deletion discussion--Antonian Sapphire (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 1 March 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. Michig (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Briony Penn[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of an activist and unsuccessful election candidate, not referenced to enough reliable source coverage to deem her notable for either endeavour. This is far too dependent on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and even the few reliable ones aren't cutting it: one is from a local community pennysaver covering her only in the context of a speaking engagement in that community (which is not evidence of encyclopedic notability), one glancingly namechecks her existence within coverage about somebody else, and one is simply a piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of her announcement that she was running in the election she didn't win. Otherwise, all we have here for sourcing is her "staff" profiles on the websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with, the self-published websites of minor literary awards that aren't notable enough to confer a WP:AUTHOR pass if the best source that can be provided is their own self-published websites, and one activism award whose source is also self-published by the granter of the award, and fails to actually support the claim at all. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can do better than this, but this sourcing isn't cutting any mustard and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her sources from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure if she's notable as a politician (and she has retired from politics),^[1] but she does appear to be a notable environmentalist and has written an award-winning book. I updated her article with citations. Her environmentalism and a stunt she pulled while dressed as Lady Godiva was widely noted^[2][3] and her book The Real Thing: The Natural History of Ian McTaggart Cowan won a Roderick Haig-Brown Regional Prize.^[4] I'm not sure if it matters, but I also noticed she has several of her works published on Google Scholar.^[5] Lonehexagon (talk)

• Weak Keep not notable as a politician, but there appears to be enough coverage as an author to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - she's passes as an author. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:12, 23 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsuko Yuya[edit]

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

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

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

Subject's only notable role seems to be Miwako Sato from the Case Closed series. Nothing in her career comes off as especially notable besides from that. Verifiable sources lacking in JP wiki. MizukaS (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers More roles than listed in the en wiki available on the Japanese https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/湯屋敦子 Additional source which discusses her fame for dubbing a certain actress : https://www.cinematoday.jp/news/N0046503 --Kunzite (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The problem is that there are no sources given about her, only two about a character that she voices. Currently, the article is just a resumé, which Wikipedia isn't. — Wyliepedia 10:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. WP:NOTRESUME addresses the practice of using WP as a platform to host a personal resume. This was not the case with this article. This is a curated list of the notable roles by this actor. It was not created by her. This functions as an actor's video/filmography. --Kunzite (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I couldn't find much in Japanese sources, but I did come across this, which seems to be an interview with her. It's a significant source, and probably would have been enough to warrant a keep had there been other sources, but I'm not sure if it's enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, at least two major roles and several other significant roles. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Miwako Sato is a major character in the long-running Case Closed series. She is also the Japanese voice of Jill Valentine in the Resident Evil series, so those are two roles that count towards meeting WP:ENT. She is also a major character in Coyote Ragtime Show AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Ricardo Cardona López[edit]

Luis Ricardo Cardona López (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. Lepricavark (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 - also authored by the BLP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 19:24, 23 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) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Kaif Raza Khan Qadri[edit]

Muhammad Kaif Raza Khan Qadri (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 a lot here, and what there is does not seem to be sourced to RS. In fact it mainly seems to be in inherited notability away. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Without reliable sourcing, this article fails WP:V. Without independent sourcing, this article fails WP:NPOV. Given the material currently in the article, the subject seems to me unlikely to overcome these issues very soon. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It’s just a vanity page with no established notability. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per nom and Smmurphy.Borderline A7 stuff.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Confused comment Wait a minute...is this the same guy as Kaif Raza Khan Qadri? The one whom I also just nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaif Raza Khan Qadri? They appear to have been created by a user who stated that he wants to create an article about his dad. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both & Salt Non notable individual. Created multiple pages with similar content. --Hagennos^Talk 14:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly not notable. However the line "my father page on Wikipedia" might not mean that the subject is the father of the editor, but may be an irregular way to refer to first page. I find it very hard to believe that someone born in 1999 would have a child who is editing Wikipedia. I know someone who was born in 1998 who has a child who just turned 5, the later will probably not be editing Wikipedia for at least a few more years. So I think the passage either has a typo, or is an irregular construction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Broadgate Tower. Sandstein 23:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

201 Bishopsgate[edit]

201 Bishopsgate (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)

Should be merged with Broadgate Tower and changed to a redirect to the above. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete and redirect it's a duplicate article for a skyscraper known by a more common name. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect, there are attribution issues with just redirecting. Huon (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per Huon. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Broadgate Tower per WP:OVERLAP. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Broadgate Tower. I see no reason why we need to delete before redirecting. --Michig (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Heron Tower. Sandstein 23:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

110 Bishopsgate[edit]

110 Bishopsgate (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)

Should be merged with Heron Tower and changed to a redirect to the above. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate copy paste article, disruptive editing of several related articles b a single ip user.PRehse (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete and redirect it's a duplicate article for a skyscraper known by a more common name. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Heron Tower per WP:OVERLAP. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 28 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. WP:CSD#G4 (substantially similar to article deleted in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sciences in the Qur'an) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Science and Islam[edit]

Philosophy of Science and Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an essay rather than an encyclopedic article and is potentially in WP:OR territory. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - Probably case of WP:A11. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MT Train^Talk 17:23, 23 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 redirect to Stock Exchange Tower. Sandstein 23:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

125 Old Broad Street[edit]

125 Old Broad Street (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 should be merged with Stock Exchange Tower and then replaced with a redirect. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete and redirect it's a duplicate article for a skyscraper known by a more common name. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and redirect duplicate article, as redirect alone will leave attribution issues. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, to Stock Exchange Tower per WP:OVERLAP, this article does have a little extra info (ie. tenant list) than the target and although (presently) unreferenced, would be helpful to readers. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and Merge with the "Stock Exchange Tower" article. The "125 Old Broad Street" page was meant to be a redirect, and I was the one who created this redirect. It turns out that some IPs suddenly removed the redirect and made a duplicate article out of it. This occurred four times in the past few years. Jim856796 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Just redirect no need to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is appropriate. This was deliberately created because the name is a valid alternative name for the building. No rationale to delete outright has been presented. This didn't really need an AFD discussion at all, it could have simply been redirected without controversy I think. At most some notice for discussion at the Talk page could have been given, but no need for the attention of many AFD editors here. --Doncram (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 28 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) 19:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lupine Travel[edit]

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

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

This is a profoundly non-notable company that was mentioned in passing in press coverage about a hoax some bogans once played. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep- Even beyond the story you are citing, Lupine Travel has significant international media coverage to warrant an article, this includes almost every major British media organization. If we are to delete this one, then it has a domino effect as several others should be nominated for deletion too- TF92 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TF92 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF and slippery slope fallacy. See also churnalism. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Wikipedia's Notability Guideline on organizations and companies states: Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them).--TF92 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although this article appear to be about one event rather than the agency, it has nothing to indicate the travel agency is any different to others in the same market. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be promotional for the business, and the sources do not talk about the company. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, a few news stories because of its unusual remit, but very few actual customers. Szzuk (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Perhaps something could be merged into Tourism in North Korea. There are related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tongil Tours and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Pioneer Tours. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a small number of trivial mentions, insufficient to pass WP:GNG -- Euryalus (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 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) 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QASource[edit]

QASource (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 company lacking in any in-depth coverage. Sources are all listings, unreliable, cruft or mill. A search brought up little else. May just be too soon. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources do seem to be press releases, and not very smoothly crafted ones. I especially like the one that is supposed to be a profile of company founder Rajeev Rai and leads with a bolded editor's note: "Can we use this quote somewhere on the page?"--GRuban (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How did I miss that...that is just beautiful. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Should anyone have any delusions about the independence of sources like testingmagazine, the "profile" linked from 20 Leading Testing Providers 2017 is discussing the company in the first person: "we are", "our CEO". Not remotely independent. Mduvekot (talk) 22:42, 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 Speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Device Magic[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, sources do not indicate the significance of Device Magic to meet WP:NSOFT, and the article seems overly promotional.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• article was speedy deleted with rationale "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Highstakes00) in violation of ban or block)" per deletion log; doing non-admin close of this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 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) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ciarán Brennan (journalist)[edit]

Ciarán Brennan (journalist) (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 journalist is not notable; not many sources, and the guy just didn't really do much. Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about it just found 2 persons with the same name. Go delete it if you must. Someone Not Awful (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough independent sources to pass notability. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:31, 23 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) 19:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larson O'Brien[edit]

Larson O'Brien (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)

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Founded in 2016 - fails WP:SUSTAINED. Only 21 attorneys -small company. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material or PR (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Given that the article's creator was blocked for undisclosed paid editing and Edwardx's rationale above, I would not be opposed to a speedy deletion if such a thing could be made available for such a scenario. After all, these editing practices have no place in the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet CORPDEPTH; the provided sources aren't substantive enough and there are UPE issues. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article does not meet. WP:Corp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaxing (talk • contribs) 06:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Wilkins[edit]

Alexis Wilkins (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)

Performer/actress/songwriter who doesn't hit any of the specific notability guidelines for those professions and who doesn't meet WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and they don't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless additional references can be added. Hmlarson (talk) 02:38, 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) 00:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert H. Tucker, Jr.[edit]

Robert H. Tucker, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was a repost seven months after the previous AFD, but it appears to be substantially rewritten, if this Wikia deletion mirror is an accurate snapshot. His civil rights activism makes him sound at least borderline notable, and there were more claims of achievements before the worst of the purple prose was ably cleared out by User:London Hall, but all unsourced, and I can't find any WP:RS online to verify any of it. This also seems to have been the case for the previous version. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are plausible notability claims here that could get him an article if he could actually be shown to clear WP:GNG for them — but there's nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to an article just because his name is present in one book that isn't about him in any non-trivial way. This is even less sourcing than the first version contained, and the first version still wasn't sourced well enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO due to lack of evidence to prove clearance of those criteria. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Did some clean up to the article prior to nomination and was also considering nominating it for deletion based on lack of references. London Hall (talk) 15:13, 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 Keep. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe, Kansas[edit]

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

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

This is an example of a recent series of articles which appear to have been created by correlating a dump of "locale" names from GNIS with a database of post office names from the Kansas Historical Society. Now, GNIS states that "locale" as specifically excluding a "populated place", and indeed, the location they give is that of the intersection of two section line roads, with no structure at all in the immediate vicinity. A little ways south there is a "Monroe Cemetery" (GNIS says so, and the aerial photo agrees), but a cemetery is not as a rule a place where people live, and a post office is not a dwelling, and often isn't a building at all. The upshot is that the synthesis of these two sources, neither of which says that there was a town or even a building here, isn't good enough to claim a "settlement" I've not come up with any other evidence for such a place, although the genuine existence of a township in a different county does impede such a search a bit. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we typically have always kept articles about once-populated places such as this. Kackley, Kansas, Rice, Kansas, and Yuma, Kansas all come to mind as examples. Notability cannot be lost, and since these once-populated places were by definition cities and towns, they pass WP:GEOLAND: "Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history"--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence that Kackley, Rice, and Yuma actually were towns. Find me evidence that Monroe ever was a town; the cited works do not say that, and GNIS tend to say it was not a town. Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas State Historical Society has records that a local newspaper wrote a story in 1966 about the organization of the Monroe School District #2 back in 1873. The bibliography mentions: "Monroe School District No. 2 Was Organized in Lincoln County in 1873." Lincoln Sentinel-Republican. Apr. 14, 1966. [1 p.]. (Reel: L1507). It stands to reason that we're looking for offline sources here, but that is a good reference that at one time it was populated since it would have maintained a school district.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More detail History of Monroe School, Organized in 1873 confirms that the area was populated and gives names of prominent citizens.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug through all those, but I keep coming up with the same issue: none of this adds up to a "settlement". They add up to a dot/area on a map that people are "from", but as best I can determine the reality is that the postal system in those days needed a "town" on the envelope, so names were given to all these post offices. I'm going to put in a query with the KHS, but assuming these get kept, they need to be described better than the misleading "settlement". Mangoe (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what then would be your definition of a "settlement" ? In any event, that would be an editing issue and not a deletion issue. Even by your description above, that seems to me to pass the requirements in WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Am I missing something in your interpretation?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming around to the idea of withdrawing them, but I would like to get a better picture of what these places actually are. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the excellent research above. Smartyllama (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Paulmcdonald. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:37, 3 March 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) 19:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Legends of Mithila[edit]

The Living Legends of Mithila (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)

Book promotion, fails N ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under G11 - this seems to be an obvious case. Adding template. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe this article subject will pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines (and hence this AFD), it isn't a blatant advertising and is not eligible for speedy deletion under G11. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I did add an advert template as well if it turned out to not be as blantant as I thought it was. Totally OK, thanks for pointing that out. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The article was created by yet another sock/meat/fan of Birbal Jha, of whom there have been dozens over the years. The book features a chapter about him and that is probably why it was created. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Long-term Spam^Spam.Misses GNG/NBOOKS by a mile.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per Godric above. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 2 March 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 all except Frank D. Stafford. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H. Terry Cady[edit]

H. Terry Cady (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)

consensus exists that an article that's only claim to significance is being a mayor of North Adams, Massachusetts is not notable enough. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest H. Rosasco Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Edward S. Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Valmore A. Whitaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Frank D. Stafford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Charles L. Frink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wallace E. Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John W. Gale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ezra D. Whitaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

William K. Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

William Johnson (Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Archie J. Pratt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

James M. Lilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Julius M. Calvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joseph R. Bianco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richard C. Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John R. Taft Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except Stafford. Being a mayor of North Adams could be enough for notability if the person could be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG for it, but is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear GNG. But all of these articles either state that the subject existed as a mayor the end, or add only personal life details that are irrelevant to establishing notability — not one of them addresses or sources anything about what they actually did in their role as mayor. And none are actually evincing a GNG pass, either: some are completely unsourced, some are single-sourced to glancing namechecks of the person's existence in much broader local history books, and while some cite more sources than that none of those sources are strong ones. James M. Lilly, for example, cites three primary source civil genealogy records (his draft card, his Social Security Death Index entry and a census form) that cannot support notability at all, his obituary, and his wife's obituary. Which means his obituary is the only source that even begins to support his notability, because it's the only one that actually represents coverage about him, but it's not a source that can carry GNG all by itself as an article's only relevant source. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can actually do much better at actually sourcing some or all of these over WP:NPOL #2 than any of them is showing right now. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: Someone put a deal of work into all of these, but it'd have been better if the person had created these articles with "Do they meet the GNG?" in mind rather than "Whee, let's make an article for every mayor of North Adams, no matter how obscure!" The arguments in favor of deletion are entirely persuasive. Ravenswing 17:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all would have to pass WP:GNG; being a mayor does not automatically convey notability, and no other notability is shown here. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all but Stafford as per Bearcat. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All except Frank D. Stafford. According to the article he was a member of the Vermont House of Representatives which would pass WP:NPOL. He only served in that position for a year or two though and since the sources are offline, I can't verify it. I'm wondering if Frank Stafford the mayor is the same person as Frank Stafford the representative since they served in two different state, although I guess it is possible.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible — North Adams is literally only a few miles away from the VT-MA border and the town Stafford is claimed to be from is literally only a few miles further north of it, so it doesn't strain credulity as much as it would if the states in question were further apart — but as it stands the claim that he served in the Vermont House of Representatives is actually entirely unsourced, and I'm bothered by the lack of any information about what district he actually represented in the Vermont House, or who his predecessors and successors were. If a source can be located to confirm that claim, I'll switch to a keep on him — but if it can't, we'll need to delete and just permit recreation in the future if and when somebody can source him better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [5] only has him as a mayor, and has a list of representatives from Vermont in 1888 on another part of the website. Someone will have to go to offline sources to confirm. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we're good. After enough fiddling with my search terms, I was finally able to find the Vermont Legislative Directory for the years he served — and its biography of him matches all of the biographical details that were already present here from the Massachusetts-based sources. So I've refactored my prior comment to keep him, but I'm still a delete on everybody else and we do still need more sourcing for Stafford overall. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Stafford State Representatives pass WP:NPOL. I express concern about the use of WP:BUNDLE for articles that are not similarly situated. At the time his page was nominated for deletion, it contained a reference to his service in the Vermont Legislature, and was not merely a mayor of North Adams. --Enos733 (talk) 18:43, 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) 00:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budsies[edit]

Budsies (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)

Horribly spammy article written by an undisclosed paid editor, in violation of Terms of Use. All sources are churnalism - press releases misrepresented as independent coverage. Almost certainly paid for as part of the support for a crowdfunding campaign. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Edwardx (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Corp and is trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete corporate spam, and a breach of our terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ORGIND. No independent coverage. scope_creep (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:Corp. Xaxing (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 02:01, 2 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zemestan-Yurt coal mine disaster[edit]

Zemestan-Yurt coal mine disaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Google turns up newsflash reports on the day but nothing since, so this does not appear to have had any lasting impact beyond that day's news. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Fawiki shows quite a bit of coverage in Persian - lasting beyond the initial news cycle. International coverage on the week of the event - 3-10 May - very wide coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep mining disasters seem to generally be notable, and as Icewhiz points out there are additional refs in Farsi. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:49, 3 March 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. (non-admin closure) KagunduTalk To Me 13:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mujahid Miski[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP1E - and actually not even an event since he's only wanted. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nom misrepresent that he is just wanted, as he is jailed in Somalia. He is also known for much more than one event - being covered in relation to his activites in Somalia, recruiting for ISIS, the Garland shooting, and the San Bernadino shooting. As a public recruiter this is a high profile individual. Meets SIGCOV - lots of coverage throughput 2015 and continuing through the end of 2017. Some book coverage and many journal articles covering this individual.Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What Icewhiz said. Also, I have added some blue chip sources (New York Times; Minneapolis Star Tribune]] on this dastard's "career".E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeney Bhi Do Yaaron (2017 TV Series)[edit]

Jeeney Bhi Do Yaaron (2017 TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not appear to be a notable web series, as I am unable to find any significant coverage for this. It also doesn't help that the series has relatively few views on YouTube. While it appears that some notable people and a notable company worked on the show, notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a Youtube series with 3500 views for a link I checked, the only refs are to Youtube and IMDb, and Google search mainly shows pages with the ((Arin Paul)) infobox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 4 March 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. It's likely some merge is necessary, and that can continue to be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari language[edit]

Pahari 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)

Too confusing to have this article and Pahari languages. Ambiguity around the term Pahari should be discussed at the main article. Batternut (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Pahari languages - this is relevant information but should be incorporated into the main article. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure I see the point of the nominator. Could they care to elaborate? Though we should probably make sure we're on the same page first? The proposed target – Pahari languages as it is currently titled though it ought to be renamed to Northern Indo-Aryan languages – is about a hypothetical subgroup of the Indo-Aryan languages. The page currently nominated for deletion on the other hand is a disambiguation page (or a WP:BCA if you prefer). Why should a disambiguation page be merged into one of the articles that it disambiguates? There are too many entries to fit into a hatnote and there isn't a primary topic anyway. Though the hypothetical group is probably the primary topic for "Pahari languages" (plural), "Pahari language" (singular) most commonly refers to either the Pahari language of Pakistan (not a member of the group), or to one or another of the Western Pahari languages. – Uanfala (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PLURALPT the plural should redirect to its singular, or (rarely) the singular should redirect to the plural. As Uanfala has just had Pahari languages moved to Northern Indo-Aryan languages (good move!), that issue is largely dealt with. But we still have a bit of a mess: Pahari language and Pahari languages should produce the same page. Pahari languages should either redirect to Pahari language, or they both redirect to the disambiguation page at Pahari. Thus this page should be merged into Pahari#languages, which would then be structured as the Indian dba. Batternut (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the plural and the singular have different meanings here (see second paragraph of WP:PLURALPT) – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the distinction in usage is sufficiently significant or reliable - both singular and plural need disambiguating. Batternut (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The plural is obviously never used to refer to any of the individual languages, and the only overlap between the two is in the singular's use in phrases like "a Pahari language". – Uanfala (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have raised a discussion upon the target of Pahari languages at RfD. Batternut (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a disambiguation page, on which Pahari languages is only one of the entries. Narky Blert (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: nope, it's not a disambiguation page; that's Pahri language, I believe. (That's part of the problem here; there's a lot of similar pages.) --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nerd1a4i: Ugh. This is a mess. Pahri language should not be a DAB page – it contains one redirect, and one WP:SEEALSO. It fails WP:TWODABS by some margin, and as such is ripe for deletion.

It looks to me as if there ought to be a single DAB page somewhere, which all these ambiguous links funnel into. I have no strong feelings as to whether it should be Pahri language or Pahari language or some other name. The only thing that matters is, that our readers can find what they want. Narky Blert (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pahri languagePRehse (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of cross-link also needs to be made to the DAB page Pahari at the end of this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari already links here. I'm not sure I see the point of having a link in the opposite direction. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say what type of link. My basic point is, that at the moment Pahari language, Pahari languages and Pahri language are a hopelessly unnavigable jumble. Sort those pages down to one DAB page with the usual branches, and a link to Pahari (disambiguation) would be an everyday WP:PTM and a WP:SEEALSO. Narky Blert (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense (though I still wouldn't add such a link myself, I wouldn't object if others do). As for the "unnavigable jumble", Pahari languages is now a redirect to its only possible topic (there still is a hatnote for those who arrive there by error), and Pahri language already links back here (though it does so only as a matter of courtesy to its long history as a misspelling redirect to Pahari language; ideally, it ought to redirect to Newari). – Uanfala (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per discussion above (in case it hasn't become patently clear). – Uanfala (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the Pahari dab, which points here. WP:DOUBLEDAB (double disambiguation) is rare, and I see no justification for it here. Most mentions of and searches for the language(s) are just "Pahari", so Pahari should work the same as Chinese or Creole, unless it can be successfully turned into a WP:BCA. However, as Northern Indo-Aryan languages covers most of these languages, the only scope for a BCA would be to compare distantly (eg Pothwari) and unrelated languages (eg Newar), typically labelled Pahari (hill-people language) as an exonym. Batternut (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double disambiguation is pretty common for languages, see Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 45#Languages and incomplete disambiguation. If this page were merged into Pahari as it is, the result will be absolutely confusing for readers. And I don't see how it can be shoehorned into the format of a disambiguation page without compromising the information content. And btw, I don't see how this is relevant, but for the "Pothwari" and Newari varities listed here, "Pahari" is not an exonym. – Uanfala (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting discussion, though the only contributor that reckoned Double disambiguation is pretty common for languages was actually you yourself!

Interesting also for the view there that the test is whether a language is referred to as simply "X" rather than "X language". If they are known as simply "X", they belong on the X disambiguation page. In this case, "Pahari" (in a language context) is more common than "Pahari language". Batternut (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to be faithful to the view of the editors you refer to, it's not a question of which is more common, but whether phrases like "X language" are used at all. There was disagreement about the extent to which separate dab pages were well established, but there was no disagreement about them being common in the case of languages. – Uanfala (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wonder what folks here would think about turning Pahari language into a WP:Set Index Article, discussed at Talk:Pahari language#Disambiguation page or Set Index? @Narky Blert, Nerd1a4i, and PRehse: pinging those not known aware of the suggestion. Batternut (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on that Talk Page, to avoid WP:CONTENTFORKing this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 13:33, 1 March 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. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue1 destinations[edit]

Blue1 destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article, unreferenced for a decade, appears to be original research. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no reliable sources. Rhadow (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep I'm getting sick and tired of these nominations by the same user. Consensus is these articles are notable. AFD is not cleanup. Enough, or we'll have to take this to WP:ANI. Smartyllama (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- There are hundreds of these articles, all supported by the Aviation WikiProject. While I understand that that in itself is not a reason for keeping this particular article, it does indicate that there's a larger problem that will not be solved by this capricious and isolated nomination. I suggest that the nominator withdraw this AfD and get with appropriate stakeholders to try to convince them that none of these "destination" articles ought to be kept. Until there's a broad discussion leading to some kind of consensus, this individual nomination is nothing more than disruption. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This editor has been nominating bunches of these destination articles for deletion. One of them evidently did get deleted but that decision was overturned at deletion review to keep. It's worth reading that discussion and the AfD discussion it was based on to see the extent of the disruption here. Nom ought to withdraw this and all other similar deletion discussions and try to gain consensus. This is a waste of everyone's time. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- We just concluded in a DRV that Airline destinations, as a group, are notable. That's fine. Of the 455 articles are a small subset that fail WP:V. This nomination is neither isolated nor capricious, to wit: Flybe franchise and codeshare destinations, Holidays Czech Airlines destinations, and Skyservice destinations.
• Keep per the outcome at the DRV discussion. Blue1 is an airline with regular services, and all you have to do is source the article. Deletion is not an option.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep I even partially sourced the article very quickly. I agree with Smartyllama - Rhadow did bring a couple good deletions in these categories in my opinion (such as the list of codeshares, or defunct charter airlines that would be impossible to source properly) but on the whole this is a giant waste of time. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:34, 23 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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no delete votes. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 11:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Object: A Memoir[edit]

Sex Object: A Memoir (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)