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) 00:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egise TaaraJuvvalu[edit]

Egise TaaraJuvvalu (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)

Unremarkable, non notable film. Most of the coverage is press-release/promotional. Other sources that mention the film, are either not reliable sources, or make a passing reference to the film. No significant coverage. Fails WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM. WP:BEFORE could not find any reliable sources to substantiate. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 14:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 13 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. Nakon 04:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde's Vegetable Garden Planner[edit]

Clyde's Vegetable Garden Planner (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 independent references and no claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination completed for @Agricola44: by power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely unsourced and almost certainly not notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 13 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siempre contigo (2018 telenovela)[edit]

Siempre contigo (2018 telenovela) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced and speculative project Philip J Fry / talk 22:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:55, 6 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song)[edit]

Wrecking Ball (Neil Young song) (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 apologize for redirecting the page two weeks ago without proper reasoning, but I would like to reopen this discussion to explain why this article is completely unnecessary. Quite frankly, there's hardly any information on the article itself; all on the article is a little bit of information on the song and a section of six references. I understand that Neil Young is a popular singer, but this song, especially since it was never released as a single, is not noteworthy. JE98 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, recorded by two notable artists, Neil Young and Emmylou Harris. Meets crierion 3 of WP:NSONG. --J04n(talk page) 13:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I don't like to just say "per J04n" as a reason, but J04n nailed it with criterion 3 of WP:NSONG. Plus, nominator's reasoning, "there's hardly any information on the article itself," shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of notability. Notability is not based on what's in the article, it's based on what can be in the article. In the case of songs, the general consensus is that this one is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per npm. redirected earlier. Non-notable song. মাখামাখি (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per J04n/NSONG#3. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John. — Zawl 10:25, 11 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. Multiple reliable sources and a CBE. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Chadwick (novelist)[edit]

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

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

I don't think this person meets WP:AUTHOR. He has had two books published. The first one did get a number of reviews, as linked in the article. Searching for him, I found one additional review and one review of his second book, A Chance Acquaintance. I'm not sure all this adds up to significant coverage, though. He also is a CBE for his civil service work, but I don't think this meets WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Author Keep His first novel was covered by English and international sources, including The New York Times, Newsweek, The Guardian, Die Zeit, Harper's, The Washington Post, and others. I'm not sure what more we'd need to establish notability via GNG. Chubbles (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have always considered the CBE and above to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The list of references in the article read like a who's-who of respected mainstream media; The Guardian, LA Times, BBC, Newsweek, Die Zeit, NY Times, Washington Post, Harpers. Some of those are behind paywalls so I couldn't read them, but the ones I did look at certainly met every definition of WP:RS I can think of. And, yeah, not to mention the CBE. What else are we looking for? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 5 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. Nakon 04:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Histories with Stephen Fry[edit]

Horrible Histories with Stephen Fry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable compilation of Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) episodes, with new introductions by Stephen Fry. Coin945 (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nationally broadcast for WP:TVSERIES and already has references in the article to pass WP:GNG with additional news sources Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) - not enough here for separate article. OZOO (t) (c) 11:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets the requirements for WP:TVSERIES, is nationally broadcast and has received significant coverage. Should not be merged, because it is a spin off of Horrible Histories (2009 TV series); it is not just a continuation with a new host. Cait.123 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. It is the 'best bits' of Horrible Histories, there is no new TV apart from the voice over. Hence this is just 'Horrible Histories' and should merge. Szzuk (talk) 16:54, 3 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. Nakon 04:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boring Bible[edit]

Boring Bible (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)

Popular spinoff to Horrible Histories. But there appear to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- A series of books, which is being kept in print (presumably becasue the books are selling) 10 years after publication is likely to be notable. I am not sure why this had a tag about ACtive Arbiration remedies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge WP:PRESERVE. Part of a notable franchise. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Horrible Histories. Make a section like Horrible Histories#Gory Games. Excelse (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's clearly notable, I cannot understand how the nom was made or garnished one delete !vote. But it does need work. This is a series off from the Horrible Histories series and should cover the whole series with more sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Can any of the keep !voters provide even one reliable source that provides significant coverage for this topic, the Boring Bible book series? I searched extensively, but they don't seem to exist. Sorry, but the arguments for article retention equate to WP:ITSNOTABLE thus far, and are not backed with any sources to qualify the stance. Notice how custom source searches such as those listed below are providing no significant coverage. Just because a series of books exists does not automatically mean that said series is notable. Furthermore, a series of books is not automatically notable by virtue of being a series. As I stated above, it just does not appear that WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:GNG is met at all, or even able to be met. Fact is, there is not enough coverage available in reliable sources to even properly verify content presently in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (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)
• (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)
• (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)

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. Nakon 04:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery of Black Rose Castle[edit]

The Mystery of Black Rose Castle (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 series is nostalgic for me... but I fear it may not have enough reliable coverage to warrant an article. Coin945 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:TVSERIES as nationally broadcast and has enough references already in the article to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - meets WP:TVSHOW as it was nationally broadcast on a major network. It has plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG. Cait.123 (talk) 19:14, 7 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. No prejudice for anyone creating a redirect with the same name. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower at Third[edit]

The Tower at Third (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)

Building has not significant nobility. Fails WP:GEOFEAT CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not even a whole lot of trivial mentions, nothing outside the very local area, and all are pretty WP:ROUTINE (e.g. the building is being painted by... ). There was the single nice article which is included on the page, but nothing beyond that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge [was: Merge or redirect] is highly preferable, for currently-very-short-articles-on-topics-that-could-easily-be-notable-but-no-one-seems-that-interested-in-developing. We should strive for wp:ATD? (alternatives to deletion). For universities, it is often/usually good to have a corresponding list or two or three of university buildings, which then serve as good alternatives to creation of separate marginal articles. In this case, according to the UIUC navigation template, there exists list-article UIUC Residence Halls. The list-article does not mention The Tower at Third. This list-article appears to be an appropriate merge target. --Doncram (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As per the university website on resident hall, that is no mention of The Tower of Third is part of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign resident hall or it belong to the university - see here [1], [2] and .[3]. From [4], [5] and [6], it seems the building belongs to private owner but close to the campus where students might choose to rent there, but it is not part of the university property - see here the campus building map and listing of the resident halls (2nd page) [7]. Thank you.

• Righto, the excellent 2006 article about the building confirms it is privately owned and states "Today, the building is mostly student apartments, with 145 two-bedroom units, two singles and one triple. The building is 100 percent occupied, according to property manager Lesley Chouinard, with almost 300 students, most of whom go to the University of Illinois and call The Tower at Third home." However it can/should still be mentioned in the UIUC Residence Halls article (with clear explanation that it is privately owned). Also it is mentioned, with this 2006 source, at Champaign,_Illinois#Campustown and it is mentioned several times in Campustown (Champaign, Illinois) and is item number 4 in the list of buildings there. Redirect to coverage there seems appropriate. Redirect or merge outcome preserves the edit history and allows for a separate article to be re-created later if/when there is more coverage. --Doncram (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the info Doncram, To merge into Champaign,_Illinois#Campustown and Campustown (Champaign, Illinois) seems yield not much benefit but would preserve maybe 4 initial edits for of the articles above have pretty much the same information if not more than The Tower at Third. As a rental property building, to meets WP:GEOFEAT in the near future seems unlikely. However, it is much clearly, Tower at 3rd is not part of the university resident hall. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. not even appropriate or a redirect, and there is no clear target. DGG ( talk ) 11:43, 5 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. Nakon 04:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lastochki/ICYE Russia[edit]

Lastochki/ICYE Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 13 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. Looks like Cunard's work has got it just got it over the consensus threshold. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Work & Travel Co.[edit]

The Global Work & Travel Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable company which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Seems to only have a couple of independent media mentions. One is a passing mention in relation to a news story on Australia's "backpacker tax" and all others relate to a low-profile FWO finding that the company underpaid some of its employees. No significant coverage. Kb.au (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Can you explain in further detail how this article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. You say it has one passing mention in a backpacker tax article (which was at the time a contentious issue in the Australian media), and all others are 'low profile'. Can you elaborate the standards for low profile, and what is communally accepted standards for other profiles? Because while there is a source regarding the underpayment of workers, your comment and nomination doesn't include that there is an OFT investigation/article regarding unfair travel contracts, which was aired by ABC News a major outlet in Australia, both digitally and on it's 7:30 report. And CBCNews, a prominent outlet in Canada which was quite high profile at the time of occurring. 'No significant coverage' seems open to interpretation, but WP:CORPDEPTH list a series of 12 examples of trivial or incidental coverage which form the basis of the lack of depth of coverage argument, of which none fit the previously mentioned ABC/730/CBC/OFT national, International & governmental coverage. If there are some other reasons for your nomination, or if there's suggestions in terms of expanding the article, please let me know how we can work to improve the entry, otherwise I would recommend to Keep Shainebennett (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non notable & WP:TOOSOON. spammy content, and the controversy listed is minor. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Clancy, Natalie (2014-11-12). "Exclusive. Global Work & Travel customers describe working-holiday nightmares. Many travellers say they ended up with no job after buying packages from company, CBC probe finds". CBC.ca. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

     The article notes:

     Dozens of young customers hoping to go on working holidays say they were left stranded overseas by a company with an office in Vancouver, a joint investigation by CBC News and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has found.

     Many of the travellers, aged between 18 and 30, say they ended up with no job after buying a working holiday package from Global Work & Travel Co.

     The international travel company sells working holiday and volunteer packages from its offices in Vancouver, London and Surfers Paradise, in Queensland, Australia.

  2. Clancy, Natalie (2015-04-14). "Global Work and Travel's Canadian clients worried after liquidation warning. Working holiday company says customers' money and trips are safe". CBC.ca. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

     The article notes:

     Canadian customers of Global Work and Travel are baffled after a warning from state officials in Queensland, Australia, that their working holiday packages could be in jeopardy because parts of the business in that country are in a voluntary insolvency process.

     Global Work and Travel sells working holiday packages to travellers under 30 years old through separate companies in Vancouver, London and on Australia's Gold Coast.

     ...

     Creditor reports obtained by CBC show they owe close to $2 million (Australian). Most of that money is owed to a related company, Global Work and Travel Co. (Asia Pacific) Pty Ltd.

     ...

     The company guarantees that customers who cancel have 10 years to use their deposit toward another trip, but many customer contracts are with the companies that are closing.

  3. Clancy, Natalie (2014-11-13). "Exclusive. Global Work & Travel trains salespeople to lie, ex-employees say. Former staff tell CBC they were told to lie to clients who wanted to work abroad". CBC.ca. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

     The article notes:

     Questionable sales tactics at an international travel company, which customers say left them stranded overseas, have been revealed in a joint investigation by CBC News and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

     A North Vancouver man is one of many former employees blowing the whistle on a company accused of misleading young travellers who want to work abroad.

     Jeremy Gilron quit his job at Vancouver’s Global Work & Travel Co. after just four days of sales training this past summer.

     Global Work & Travel arranges job interviews or volunteer positions overseas, as well as accommodation, airport transfers, flights, cellphones, bank accounts and insurance.

  4. Ford, Mazoe (2015-12-14). "Working holiday company The Global Work and Travel Co pays back $25k to customers after government investigation". ABC Online. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

     The article notes:

     A Gold Coast-based working holiday company has agreed to pay back thousands of dollars to young travellers after a Queensland Government investigation found what it believed were some unfair terms in the company's contracts.

     Twenty-nine people who had signed up for assistance on their gap-year travels are receiving partial refunds from The Global Work and Travel Co (Global), totalling $25,655.

     Global arranges travel and employment packages for 10,000 young people each year, primarily in Australia, UK, USA and Canada.

     In November 2014, a joint ABC and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) investigation unearthed dozens of angry customers, who accused Global of charging big mark-ups, using high-pressure sales tactics, and making false promises about employment.

     The article further notes:

     The partial refunds, which range from approximately $200 to $1,500, come after a 13-month investigation by the Queensland Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

     OFT investigators raided the company's Surfers Paradise headquarters in February 2015, seizing documents and computer files, and escalated the case to the OFT's Major Investigations Unit.

  5. Ford, Mazoe; Bainbridge, Amy (2016-03-15). "The Global Work and Travel Co working holiday company refunds customers after investigation". ABC Online. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

     The article notes:

     On Monday, the OIR said it would not continue to pursue the company, after it agreed to pay the two backpackers $4,585 in outstanding fees charged for finding them work.

     The company has seven days to make the payment, and the OIR says once it is made all action against the company will have been resolved.

     In another hearing in February, The Global Work and Travel Co was fined $9,000 for six contraventions of the Private Employment Agents Act 2005.

  6. Bainbridge, Amy; Ford, Mazoe (2014-11-11). "Authorities investigate The Global Work and Travel Co accused of rip-offs by former staff and customers". ABC Online. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

     The article notes:

     Queensland authorities are investigating 22 complaints about a Gold Coast company that sends young people around the world on working holidays.

     Separately, in a joint investigation between the ABC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), dozens of former customers and employees of The Global Work and Travel Co have come forward claiming the company preys on vulnerable consumers and gives false guarantees about jobs.

     The Global Work and Travel Co offers to take care of job opportunities, flights, transfers, visa assistance and insurance for travellers to work in five countries on 10 different programs.

  7. Ford, Mazoe; Bainbridge, Amy (2015-06-05). "Working holiday company The Global Work and Travel Co cautioned by Queensland consumer watchdog". ABC Online. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

     The article notes:

     A Gold Coast travel business at the centre of dozens of customer complaints could be named and shamed if it is found to be have breached Australian Consumer Law, Queensland's consumer watchdog has warned.

     The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) met with The Global Work and Travel Co's (GWAT) sole director last week to discuss the nature of more than 200 grievances.

     ...

     The OFT is currently investigating 146 complaints, while the Office of Fair and Safe Work Queensland is looking into 68 complaints — both are yet to make any findings.

     ...

     The meeting with Fair Trading inspectors comes after GWAT put two arms of its business into voluntary liquidation in March.

     A third entity, The Global Work and Travel Co (Asia Pacific) continues to book working holidays for young people.

  8. 10-minute video report on 11 November 2014 from ABC Online's Amy Bainbridge at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/false-promises-inflated-fares-and-misleading/5883774.
  9. Lavingia, Christina (2015-06-08). "12 ways to see the world for (practically) free". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2018-01-29.

     The article notes:

     If your interests lie with the environment and wildlife, you can volunteer overseas through The Global Work & Travel Co. With options in Africa, India, Nepal, Thailand, Morocco, Greece, Spain and Fiji, to name a few, opportunities are available for two-week to one-year durations.

     Those who volunteer through this program can work to rescue animals, rehabilitate monkeys, care for orphans, raise husky puppies, teach in preschools, coach community sports leagues and take wildlife photography. This is a great opportunity for anyone considering a career in zoology or childhood development.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Global Work & Travel Co. to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The investigations of the company were published between 2014 and 2016 by ABC Online and CBC.ca, two of Australia's major news websites. This is sustained coverage of the subject.

  Cunard (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- upon the review of sources above, it's still a "delete" for me. The controversies are minor, as in: "The company guarantees that customers who cancel have 10 years to use their deposit toward another trip, but many customer contracts are with the companies that are closing." Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though poor promotional copy as is, news illustrates number of controversial articles not spoken in the current text. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• These are minor controversies. In any case, keeping the article would be akin to kicking the can down the road; I don't see anybody jumping on to edit the article; it's still the same advertorial as at the start of this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if you think it is notable, being "poor promotional copy" should mean a delete for WP:NOT reasons shouldn't it? Kb.au (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed the promotional material from the article. This leaves content like this:

  • 2014, Joint ABC News Australia and CBC News investigation into ripping off customers.^[1][2]
  • 2015, Opened 3rd office in London^[3]
  • 2015, Government of Queensland concludes investigation after company agrees to pay back $25,000 to 29 affected customers.^[4][5]

  References

  1. ^ "Authorities investigate The Global Work and Travel Co accused of rip-offs by former staff and customers". Retrieved 1 December 2017.
  2. ^ "Global Work & Travel customers describe working-holiday nightmares". Retrieved 1 December 2017.
  3. ^ "The Growing Trend Towards Working Holidays". Retrieved 1 December 2017.
  4. ^ "Global Work and Travel investigation concludes". Retrieved 1 December 2017.
  5. ^ "The Global Work and Travel Co (Global) pays back $25,000 to customers after OFT investigated". Retrieved 1 December 2017.
  Cunard (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Some concern that the article now gives UNDUE weight to the negative coverage on the company. Kb.au (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have rewritten the article. It is no longer promotional and is no longer unduly negative. Cunard (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's certainly much better now. Thanks. Kb.au (talk) 12:26, 13 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. Only the article's creator wants this kept. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Easy[edit]

Driver Easy (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 software, previously PROD'd but was the tag was removed by the article's creator. G11 was declined, but it is somewhat notable (not to the point of G11 in my opinion). PROD text was: Non-notable software with almost no reliable sources online or in the article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources provided include several independent articles from reputable websites. Rt25 (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Note to closing administrator: Rt25 is the creator of the article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rt25: Reputable? Perhaps. Reliable as Wikipedia sources? No. Lifewire, TechAdvisor, and Purch Group are the only sources I'd consider reliable and they can't prove notability on their own. Softpedia is a download site, Download.com is a download site, CHiP hosts the download with a Dutch description, FileHippo is a download site, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Aren't those reliable sources notable themselves? And is Alexa Rank helpful for proving notability? Rt25 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many sites are notable without being reliable. Encyclopedia Dramatica has an article but anyone who cited it would not be taken seriously. Alexa isn't a very good way to show notability either. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the website of this topic and it says the company is a Gold Microsoft Partner. Does that add to its notability? Even though every factor alone can't decide the topic's notability, is it possible that all of them combined can make a difference? And I understand that notable sites doesn't have to be reliable. It is still unclear for me that why the sources (except the download sites) aren't reliable. Also, if you look at some of the software Wiki pages, like Data Recovery Wizard and IObit Uninstaller, you can see cases that I think is similar to this page -- You get similar types of sources from them. Is it possible that some pages are treated differently than others with regard to notability? Rt25 (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sites that aren't download sites are reliable. I just don't think those three sources are enough to prove notability. Those other two topics don't look too reliable either (and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I wouldn't be surprised if they got AfD'd too. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then are there clear standards or requirements for notability to be adequately proven? What specific types of sources and how many of them are needed (since the three sources are not enough)? Rt25 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG (as a guideline) and WP:NSOFTWARE (as an idea). Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added. Rt25 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: New sources added to help proving the notability of its topic. Some of its original sources were questioned not because they were unreliable but because they were "not enough". And it seems that Wikipedia doesn't have a clear and specific guideline for what are called "enough". Also, there are several pages that have similar sources on Wikipedia, like Data Recovery Wizard and IObit Uninstaller. They are pages that an administrator think should be AfD'd but they are NOT! And because of this, this page should be kept for the sake of consistency.Rt25 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is not a notable software package. The article reads like an advertisement to me. There are some references, but I'm skeptical of their journalistic quality, to put it lightly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this topic can be proven by the references. The article is written in an unbiased tone. The references aren’t ads either but independent articles, which the audience can trust.Rt25 (talk) 04:00, 12 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Damage Sound System[edit]

Brain Damage Sound System (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 notability guidelines, seems to be just a WP:GARAGEBAND. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:50, 13 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Sim[edit]

Aaron Sim (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)

See the multiple decline comments before it was moved into article space. No independent in-depth coverage, and so does not meet general notability.

There are two basic problems. First, most of the text is promotional. Second, the subject does not appear to be notable. The first could be solved by cutting, but not much would be left, and the subject still would not pass biographical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete advertisement for subject that does not meet notability guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-promotion. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, informations are gathered from reliable national newspapers in Malaysia, Singapore, Hongkong and Brunei which are considered secondary sources.archived copy here Also the article in South China Morning Post and the forums. Shenalyn2018 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- non notable as either "author, entrepreneur, philanthropist" or a "chartered professional accountant". Sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 9 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies - let me know if you would like the article moved to your userspace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kettel[edit]

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

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

No indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. A previous version of this article was previously deleted at AFD in 2016 for similar issues. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 03:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 03:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 03:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As the author of this article, I admit that I didn't thoroughly consider his notability (I supposed it was notable simply because German, Russian, etc. wiki pages about him also exist and have more links). Although there are few reliable sources, here's what I found which could meet criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO:
  • https://www.concertzender.nl/kettel-space-exposure/ (Dutch; a national radio station where Kettel performed an hour long live show, perhaps meeting criterion 12)
  • http://volterock.blogspot.be/2014/06/interview-kettel-reimer-h-eising.html (Interview)
  • http://www.conceptmusic.ru/interviews/10 (Russian; interview)
  • https://www.kettelmusic.com/videos/ (Composition work for advertisements, perhaps meeting criterion 10)
  • http://igloomag.com/reviews/kettel-secede-when-can-sending-orbs (Magazine)
  • https://www.sumthing.com/blog/favorite-unconventional-soundtracks-of-the-year-ibb-obb/ (Video game music blog)
  • http://www.kracfive.com/kettel/info.htm (USA label)

I would also argue that criterion 5 is met by his release of three works on Planet Mu. My vote is therefore Keep, although I won't object if another consensus is drawn (I'm relatively new to Wikipedia after all). BriefAeon (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ctrl (SZA album). Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl the Tour[edit]

Ctrl the 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)

Does not seem to be notable either via the GNG or NTOUR (which requires discussion of the tour, not just a couple of reviews of individual shows). Drmies (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as the Billboard article cited and coverage in The Guardian here. A Merge to the main article about the artist or album is also worth considering. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Ctrl (SZA album). The previous voter is correct that there has been coverage in some reliable sources, but those are either brief stories that the tour had been scheduled, or in the case of the Guardian, a review of one show. Per WP:NTOUR the tour must be covered in the media as a notable entity in its own right. News tidbits from this tour can be mentioned at the article for the associated album, and at this point the list of shows is fan trivia that can remain at the singer's own website. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ctrl (SZA album), the album that the tour supported as WP:ATD. Not independently notable. There's nothing in the article worth merging that I can see; it's mostly an indiscriminate WP:DIRECTORY of event listings. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom মাখামাখি (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ctrl (SZA album) - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ctrl (SZA album) for the reasons ably outlined by Doomsdayer520 and K.e.coffman. The only source of substance is the review in The Guardian, but nothing from it is in the tour article, so I don't see anything that needs merging. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:49, 13 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. Not much discussion, but what there was is clearly in support of keeping.

And, yeah, poor article title is right. Somebody please find a better title and move it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on Security and Stability on Korean Peninsula[edit]

Vancouver Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on Security and Stability on Korean Peninsula (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)

Last update was before occurrence of the meeting, little documentation of occurrences, poor article title. Citing WP:N. -- Jeremy Ahn ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What part of WP:N are you citing? Article content does not determine notability. If there is enough coverage about the meeting, including of its outcome, in reliable sources out there that are not (yet) cited in the article, the article topic is still notable. (Is there?) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll answer my own query: yes there is, lots, some of which I've added to the article. Keep. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This was a fairly significant development, also unsure what part of WP:N the original poster was citing. Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:14, 5 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. No consensus was derived from this discussion. Nakon 04:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Khalek[edit]

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

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

There is no secondary RS coverage of this person. Having written op-eds of unknown notability for a few left-wing outlets does not make one notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually there are plenty of sources that have her as a direct subject, such as the Jerusalem Post, but none are cited in the article.69.254.118.137 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lots of sources just not in article at present.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the first two pages of results. There are only two RS on those pages: (1) a long Daily Beast story that mentions Khalek briefly in two sentences (2) A Dagens Nyheter article which covers the Daily Beast article and mentions Khalek once. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources include this interview on her, in-depth story about her, and major coverage of her in Commentary magazine. She's often a subject of controversy also here, so in addition to her credentials as a journalist and podcaster, she easily meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:24, 10 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. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 13:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issamar Ginzberg[edit]

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

Issamar Ginzberg (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)

Promotional article sourced largely to either incidental mentions in reliable sources or profiles in non-notable sources. I gave up after deleting the reference to him as a descendant of King David. Article is unsalvageable. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is credible, in-depth coverage already in the article here from the Times of Israel in the United States / Israel and here from the Jewish Telegraph in the U.K., among other in-depth coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that is indisputably about him; these mentions are anything but "incidental". There are also dozens of sources that are incidental quotes or mentions, or mere overkill, such as the string of sources "[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]" supporting a single sentence. I agree with the nominator that the tone is promotional and that the issue needs to be addressed, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the "Article is unsalvageable". AfD is not cleanup; the article should be retained and any concerns about tone or content should be appropriately addressed through discussion, consensus-building and editing. Alansohn (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Forward published this source about him. Then there's this source from The Christian Science Monitor that is entirely about him and that comes from a nationally recognized, religious-oriented paper entirely unaffiliated with Judaism or this one, an interview with him from the Christian Broadcasting Network. All of these additional sources were found by clicking on the "News" link in this article's AfD header, a basic element of WP:BEFORE.
    This Keep is a no-brainer. Alansohn (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a highly-promotional article on a subject who is not notable as either "business strategy and marketing consultant" or a "motivational speaker". The source offered above [8] is part of the same promo pool of sources; it promotes his speech at an expo and includes an interview, again self-promotional. Being a columninst does not meet WP:AUTHOR and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • K.e.coffman, the article is promotional, but again that's a matter for editing and not a valid excuse for deletion. Tossing away one cherry-picked source that you have baselessly determined is not acceptable to you accomplishes nothing, unless you can dispense with *ALL* of them. There are five sources cited above, either already in the article or available to be added, all of which are undeniably in-depth articles about him in reliable and verifiable sources, and there are plenty more available. No one has claimed that he's notable as a columnist; he's also not notable as a soccer player under WP:FOOTY or as a paratrooper under WP:SOLDIER, but he is notable under WP:GNG based on the coverage he's received. Alansohn (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad we all agree that the article is promotional. It is a product of a marketing person's marketing, the sources are all a product of that marketing, and Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. Coretheapple (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he is notable as a person, I think this article meets the WP:BIO policy with the new sources identified above. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure I'd call this canvassing, but it might come off that way. [9]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also this Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems innocent enough, and no obvious reaction yet. But 7000+ people saw that tweet, I would be wary of new editors swarming in. (If you are a new editor reading this, don't bother commenting unless you have something substantial to say, this is a discussion, not a vote). However this is not enough to get me to change my comment at this point. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
      • Thanks for the subbed template. That's actually the one I had in mind but couldn't find it. Coretheapple (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It seems most of the content here stems from a PR persons's PR. The canvassing is troubling as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep True that the page needs to be cleaned up. Also true that the subject is notable. He has extensive news references in The US and Israel Adamreinman(talk) 16:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Issamar Ginzberg here,the person being weighed for notability in this AfD. :)

• No Vote, but... Thank you for those who pointed me to this discussion and the gentlemen from Quora who let me know that I can/should weigh in on the discussion.

This profile of me, which I've obviously seen before, is a profile that is super full of all kinds of references; overkill in a big way. I did not want to come and delete or change anything because it would be "tampering" with the profile, and I hope(d) to no avail that this would get cleaned up by the Wikipedia community as time went along.

there must be fifty(?) or more footnotes and sourced to this article, a great many of which do, as has been pointed out, point to sources where I am quoted as a by-the-way, such as in Prevention Magazine, National Geographic, Reader's Digest, and so on. And, while those mentions are important to me from a business perspective, they alone do not give me the kind of notability that is rightfully required from a Wikipedia-worthy entry.

At the same time, were it not for those references, there probably are way more than enough serious profiles/references/sources to make this profile worthy of the Wikipedia entry. But again... i'm not the judge here!

So, to help you make an informed decision, let me quote some places I have been mentioned that may help voters make up their minds...

I've lectured and spoken at conferences across the world (Within the USA: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Arizona) in Montreal, Canada, and in the UK in London and Manchester. And in Israel, I've spoken in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and other cities. The tens if not hundreds of well known and impressive venues include Google, Tel Aviv University, the Jewish National Funds Biannual Conference, the Jerusalem Post, and Jerusalem Institute of Technology. These have been covered extensively in the Hebrew, Yiddish, and English Media.

I've also been profiled by the Christian Science Monitor, Mishpacha Magazine, the Jerusalem Post, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Ami Magazine, the Jewish Tribune, Globes TV, Channel 9 (in Russian) and many other media outlets, in addition to the hundreds of mentions in other media outlets like TV interviews on CBS, NewsMax TV, and quoted that appeared in media outlets across the globe, from Costco Magazine and the Kuwait Times to the New York Times, Nasdaq.com, CNBC, and Fox Business.

I should probably also mention that I'm a weekly columnist for Hamodia, the prominent Ultra-Orthodox Paper in four English language editions (Ha'aretz (where I've been quoted too!) quotes the circulation at 100,000... have the dominating Yiddish language business podcast... and write for Entrepreneur Magazine and the Jerusalem Post as well. I've also contributed to several books either as myself or as a ghostwriter to help my clients get published. (shh!)

I'm also a graduate of the Rabbinic (Semicha) Program of Ohr Somayach, a Certified Mohel, and (to those of you who believe in the truth of the Bible, at least) have a chain of generations stretching back up from my own family all the way back to King David. (And yes, for those who care.. the lineage of King David back to "Zaidy" Adam and "Grandma" Eve is documented in the Bible itself.)

But I probably shouldn't mention that.. because I think that that might be what got this whole AfD started! :-)

So thank you everyone for your input, and may the chips fall where they may...

(putting on my business advisor/columnist hat here): at least there's a good way to teach a lesson out of this...

This must be a teeny tiny bit like (putting on my Rabbi hat now) what it's like when one gets to heaven after life on earth and they dissect his every action and judge him or her worthy...

Thank you for letting me have my say. And thanks for reading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbiissamar (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 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. There is no consensus to delete this article, defaulting to keep. Nakon 04:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phaser (game framework)[edit]

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

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

Does not satisfy general notability or product notability. The sources are nearly all primary, either the developer's web site or vanity sources or press releases.

Merging to the developer's article would be an option if the developer had an article, but the developer doesn't, presumably because they don't meet corporate notability.

Two previous editors have questioned notability. A deletion discussion is better than just move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a deletion discussion is better than a move-warring (which is of course very irritating and nobody wants!). As for the article, I'm quite surprised about it not meeting the requirements. We are talking about a pretty successful piece of software that is used in many games, has a big active community and has a long history of development (more than 4 years). Many sources are primary, yes, as they contain the most detailed description of several aspects, but there are also non-primary ones. Actually I wonder which kind of sources would one expect for a successful piece of software... an article in Ars Technica? I took the time to write (what I think is) a sensible draft so that Wikipedia covers something that I honestly think it should. I understand it being marked as a draft (as I myself did), and requesting it to be more complete, but "candidate for deletion"? That seems a stretch to me. (Not to mention directly removing it -- that I cannot agree at all :) ).

Finally, I'd like to differentiate what are "recommended practices" (and by whom) from what are official Wikipedia policies. I think deleting something is irritating enough so as not to take it lightly, and certainly not in a speedy way if not directly against official policies. Hopefully we all agree on that? :) --jbc (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I think we can be more lenient with free software relative to commercial software, but there still have to be some independent, secondary sources for notability (otherwise every project on github could have an independent article - we still need some standard for notability). I can't find any sources for this subject, outside blogs, and the only blogs we allow are news blogs subject to editorial control. I think there is room for improvement here - Linux Kernel Monkey Log should definitely be considered a WP:RS, but the bar would still have to be high, and even the blog sources for this seem to be relatively minor.SeraphWiki (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete No leniency should be given to any software out there. Open source doesn't mean no money gets exchanged, many companies release open-source software as a method of advertising, which is quite obviously the case here. Its more than generous wording along with it sourcing almost entirely on its own site, this falls dramatically short of inclusion. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep - I found a few things, whilst not my area, I know this framework is used on a lot of games on Android. See [10],[11],[12], [13] Whether or not any of these are considered reliable sources is up to those who know more about programming. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• strong-ish keep - (Is this a voting thing? :) ) I agree with SeraphWiki in having some standard of notability, and whereas the fine line of where it is is hard to decide, I think we are playing safe here: Phaser is quite a notable thing in many metrics (sheer number of people using it for a start). The references given by Lee Vilenski are quite a good reflection of it, imho (not only but especially the mozilla development site and book published by crc press). As for the "obviously as a method of advertising", well, let's not be paranoid :) I wrote the article (a draft) and I have no connection whatsoever with the guys who developed Phaser, I'm just a user and was shockingly surprised that there was no Wikipedia entry for such an obvious (imho) article, so I started writing one. Finally, seriously, deleting is not to be taken lightly, I do hope that you see how insulting that can sound (to the criteria of the editor). --jbc (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't much about the subject area, but there doesn't seem to be much coverage apart from primary sources. I looked over the sources Lee Vilenski found, but in all four cases I have doubts about the significance of either the source or the coverage. JBC - Both here and in the edit summaries, you keep using the argument that no one should propose an article be deleted because it hurts the feelings of the editor who created the article. That's not a valid argument; frankly, if you are oversensitive enough to take it personally whenever a WP article you created is being considered for deletion, that's your problem, and would probably be better solved by using the WP:Articles for creation process. It's obviously a lot slower than just creating an article yourself, but the emotional investment is less if it doesn't meet notability standards.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:01, 8 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. the contributor asked for speedy deletion of their article DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surge Holdings Inc.[edit]

Surge Holdings Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The company lacks notability. All of the mentions at Google News are press-releases. Even NASDAQ mention is a re-published company press-release. Other mentions are normal stock market data and don't give deep coverage. The only third party data mention is TheAtlantic.com.de article. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete based on this being an OTC-listed blockchain company, and "theatlantic.com.de" may be a fake news site; I believe this company to be a deliberate fraud. The other references are stock listings or press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment I published this article; I'm relatively a new editor, so don't yet know well Wikipedia's guidelines. I've blanked the article, and you may delete it now. Thanks. Haayin (talk) 08:04, 6 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) 00:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conducting Elections Simultaneously in India[edit]

Conducting Elections Simultaneously in India (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 and WP:OR Chetsford (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if this happens, it should be covered in an article on elections in India. The current article is unsourced speculation, and would be WP:NOTNEWS if there were sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS. Number 57 23:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Derek Andrews (talk) 18:01, 10 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Upadhyaya[edit]

Dinesh Upadhyaya (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)

Utter trivia. Wikipedia is not a mirror of the Guiness Book of Records. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - Wikipedia keeps record of many non-notable people like Oxford University's teacher or porn stars with 5 credits. I don't think a normal porn actor or a university's professor with no noteworthy achievement is deserving for a biography. The article clearly notes that he has made 89 Guinness records to his credit, so the person is important and his bio should be kept. Ratsama (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. trivia, not notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is trivia and as such it is not notable in Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Hagennos ❯❯❯ Talk 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Störm (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another example of total silliness in creating an article. I have to agree that people who appear in a few pronographic films are not notable, but that is no reason to create this article on someone who is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:04, 12 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. Looks like WP:CSD#G5 as well ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Pacitti[edit]

Adam Pacitti (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 BLP about a non-notable YouTuber. The subject is allegedly notable for WhatCulture (which is so notable that it doesn't have an article) Cultaholic (which is so notable that it doesn't have an article) and WhatCulture ProWrestling aka Defiant Wrestling (which is so notable that it is up for AfD for a third time and is almost certainly going to be deleted again). So the article seeks to inherit notability from things that are not notable themselves and notability is not inherited anyway. Is there notability outside of that? I'm not seeing it. Sure, he has a tiny bit of media coverage but nothing that adds up to significant coverage by reliable sources and that is the line it has to cross to be kept. There has been persistent spamming and promotion around the topic of WCPW/Defiant and I feel that a pre-emptive salting might be in order here. DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 19:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 19:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 19:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see nothing to support WP:GNG. 2 out of the 6 references are to the same passing billboard ad which does not have anything lasting. 3 of the 6 have to do with a project not him. The last one is an interview. - Galatz^Talk 19:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't meet general notability guidelines - a couple of tabloid articles regarding a single publicity stunt, an interview by a (presumably amateur) 19-year-old video games writer, a few trivial mentions in pro-wrestling media relating to a company of dubious notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV requirements.LM2000 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I feel as though if he were not tied to WhatCulture, he wouldn't have ever been made. He does have some other claims to fame such as the Pinfall Documentary, but hardly enough for Wikipedia's criteria. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitta Pitta (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 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. Nakon 04:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ertaizi[edit]

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

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

A "there's no there there" placename: coords mark a point in the middle of field SW of a town with a different name. There is an Ertaizi geological formation but it's not the least bit clear what it's named after. GHits don't produce census info or anything else definitively indicating the presence of a town. Mangoe (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a place is now an open field doesn't mean it did not exist. It probably was subsequently destroyed or abandoned in WWII, or the Civil War or in the subsequent changes and turmoil of the Peoples Republic's history. Such places should be remembered, as a lesson in the fragility of all things human, if for no other reason. Asiaticus (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then source it. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In current circumstances it fails WP:NGEO, also for WP:V —usernamekiran(talk) 21:07, 11 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 FC Tucson season[edit]

2012 FC Tucson season (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 season for a semi-pro team. Article fails WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fail WP:NSEASON. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhok Gujran[edit]

Dhok Gujran (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 content Rathfelder (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article was blanked by an IP about six months ago. I have undone that and restored the content. Undecided on notability, but now it has content. Smartyllama (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Happy to withdraw my proposal on that basis.Rathfelder (talk) 13:28, 6 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zaiful Abdul Hakim[edit]

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Article was deleted over sourcing and notability concerns. While the sourcing issues have been addressed, the subject still does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:44, 7 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Donnelly Sunset League[edit]

George Donnelly Sunset League (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:CLUB. Local amateur league without any national or regional coverage. Rogermx (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable local league. Spanneraol (talk) 17:06, 7 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Carabalí[edit]

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

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per a super-easy Google News search. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:11, 12 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Boys' Choir[edit]

St. John's Boys' Choir (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:NORG and WP:NMUSIC possible redirect to the college page Dom from Paris (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musical group. There are 5 million schools in the world. No, need to add each school's musical team. They have no charted song in billboard. মাখামাখি (talk) 13:52, 7 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) 00:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diganto Publication[edit]

Diganto Publication (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 publishing house.Probably created by UPE sock. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH and, in general, promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obvious spam created by a CU confirmed sock. Other issues don't come into consideration as it fails to meet the terms of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 12 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wastement[edit]

Wastement (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:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. The sources are 1&3 a PR website that states "We help Finnish music professionals build international success stories" 2 doesn't mention the subject, 4&7 facebook, 5 a festival guide that contains a passing mention, and finally 6 which doesn't mention the subject Dom from Paris (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 5 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Kashmiri History[edit]

Lost Kashmiri History (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 Website or Organisation is not notable and every line in this article is pure Original research. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP

A few reasons as to why this should stay.

1. This is not purely original research as citations have been listed where some of the authors of Lost Kashmiri History have been mentioned directly or the organisation and organisation members themselves has been cited by media outlets as author. Other people have even blogged about Lost Kashmiri History being a good source.

See -

http://www.maryscullyreports.com/lost-kashmiri-history-archives/

http://withkashmir.org/lkh/

http://www.kashmirconnected.com/publications-news/lost-kashmiri-history

2. Please note how other leading media portals both in India and Pakistan use Lost Kashmiri History as a source or author showing the reputation and notability it has. See below.

- https://thewire.in/116787/silenced-exotic-backdrop-called-kashmir/
- The Wire (Indian web publication) is a leading news portal - "Muhammad Faysal is [...] and co-founder of the Lost Kashmiri History Project."

- http://www.dawn.com/news/1270341 - Dawn (newspaper) This is a leading newspaper in Pakistan - "...was born in Srinagar, Kashmir. He's the co-founder of the Lost Kashmiri History Project."

- https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2017/8/15/kashmir-and-the-festering-legacy-of-partition - "...Arsilan Aziz, founder of the website Lost Kashmiri History, told The New Arab..."

3.Please note how some sources and citations for some Wikipedia pages on media organisations are the media organisation themselves.

4. There has been at least two editors who have helped improve this page and prevent vandalism, rather than try to take it down. Both of these editors are experienced in their own ways. The history log can be seen accordingly. (see User:Cmr08 and User:CASSIOPEIA) This is in the true spirit of Wikipedia.

5. Note this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helping_Angels - It has not been deleted and some citations and sources lead to blank links. Just a template box put up stating that the article needs improvement. There are many stubs on Wikipedia with very very few sources. Lack of citation (as compared to absence of sources) cannot be the only grounds for deletion especially in a case when there are citations and sources and when notability becomes subjective to the region and area and field it represents. But yes I understand there are grounds where this article doesn't meet notability and sources in certain ways.

6.I have no Conflict of Interest here as I am not part of Lost Kashmiri History. Nor do I have conflict of interest related to the Kashmir conflict. I have started pages related to the Indian Army, the Director General of NIA India as well as Kashmir etc... as can be seen by the type of articles i have started and edited and photographs I have contributed.

7. If the Wikipedia community thinks the page still needs to be removed, according to Wikipedia guidelines, then well, ok, I think the admin and the community at large on Wiki does a wonderful amazing job. Part of the learning. Maybe Lost Kashmiri History may be able to prove notability etc on Wikipedia better after a few months or years.

Cheers :)

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, for which we require at least two reliable sources that cover the topic in depth. The sources mentioned by the page creator are essentially blog sites, not mainstream news media. (I have written about topics where it is incredibly hard to find main stream sources, e.g., Baloch Students Organisation, where all independent news sources have been suppressed by the state. So I understand the problems. But Kashmir has thriving news media. If this organisation is notable, there should have been coverage.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : Rather than deleting this in entirety from Wikipedia, maybe it can be redirected or merged into another article and shortened to a few lines within the new article it is placed in. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have WP:RS talking about the website, you are always free to add its mention to an appropriate article. That doesn't affect this AfD in any way. Most of the content in the present article is sourced to SPS and blog sites. I don't see anything here that can be salvaged. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one of the many little known organization. Nothing suitable for merge. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, including for the fact that the 'Keep' vote shows clear POV/advertising is at work, even if the user claims they do not have a POV, which is always a sign of the opposite. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:41, 12 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Finance Student Association[edit]

International Finance Student Association (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:NORG. All sources are affiliated or a student blog. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:10, 5 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yasir Nawaz[edit]

Yasir Nawaz (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 the criteria for notability. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:04, 5 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Rushdi[edit]

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

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

The article includes unsourced content, bias and dead links. HFM Expert (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Neither of those is a reason to delete an article. If the article needs fixing, then fix it. I see from the article's edit history you've had a content dispute with User:Umair Aj: deletion is not the way to fix this. Have you read WP:Dispute resolution? The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject is a celebrated and a renowned Pakistani singer. I don't see the logic behind this irrational AfD. --Saqib (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination with no basis in policy from user involved in edit war at article. Previously attempted to "speedy" as "attack page"... Purely disruptive. -- Begoon 14:01, 5 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haynes West End[edit]

Haynes West End (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 an obviously notable hamlet in the middle of nowhere. Sources are maps (which publish every place everywhere) and a trivial passing mention in a newspaper. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Haynes, Bedfordshire if not deemed notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CSD G5. Highly malicious and deceptive user who was just site banned after getting caught socking, and was blocked by consensus of the community before that. The principles in WP:BMB applies here. We don’t need to assess anything else. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete---Essentially per TonyBallioni.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - no notability whatsoever, meets criteria for WP:A7 and WP:G5. Adding speedy delete template under G5 as that is the most agreed upon main reason. --Kirbanzo (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this page meet criteria A7? See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 before you answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I think it is worth referring to the Domesday book [14]]. So not a trivial mention. It states that Haynes Church End being two fields away from the main village, which is clearly split in two, with Haynes (which is unamed), the other called Haynes West End, clearly sign posted as such, with that name. Sometimes, if there was plague, they would burn the houses, to stop the spread of it, and it would split village into pieces. It could be that, that has led to this. I would suggest a Merge. scope_creep (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete You know, when you look at it, there is nothing to merge, apart from the passing mention of a name. scope_creep (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see a reason to delete, this source mentions that it is in the parish, so I would recommend Merge if nothing else. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep geography-related articles in stub forms can always be expanded upon and there's no need to claim that this article won't ever receive huge coverage, plus this article passed the articles for creation so plenty of well-experienced editors saw this article and believed it to be worthy to be included inside of Wikipedia. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 10:10, 11 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. Nomination Withdrawn.And, keeping this open will likely generate far more heat than light. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Boone[edit]

Sarah Boone (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. This may be a bit of a test case: does the mere filing of a patent infer notability? The article does not appear to demonstrate any lasting coverage in reliable secondary sources etc but relies instead entirely on contemporary primary sources. FWIW, I've just removed some citations referencing findagrave, which is not considered to be reliable anyway. Sitush (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I agree that an issue of a patent is not in itself evidence of notability, the nature of this invention makes it a keep to my mind. The ironing sleeve board is a common household item today and invention of it is thus notable per se. In any case, it is an easy keep since she does not fail GNG as claimed, she only fails as a test case for patents. She is covered in many books on black inventors and domestic science, e.g. African American Awareness: A Curriculum, Lessons of Black History Makers 'N' Action, Great Discoveries and Inventions by African-Americans. SpinningSpark 15:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahem, WP:SPS - Lulu, Authorhouse etc are not reliable sources, so none of your links apply. I agree that a sleeve board is quite commonly found even today but that does not mean it is the design in question, nor indeed that the design in question was ever put into production. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first source is published by Good Year Books. I stand to be corrected, but they seem to be a reputable educational publisher in business since 1973, long before the internet and self-publishing became a thing. My second source is authored by E. P. McKnight who has a masters degree in Educational Psychology. That might get her past the "recognised expert" hurdle, and even if it doesn't, she is possibly notable as an actress. Even if her information is not deemed reliable, the views of a notable person on the subject is worthy of note and adds to its notability. Don't know about David M. Foy though.
  • You've got to be kidding that sleeve boards are a different design today invalidates her claim to notability. The same could be said for the inventors of cars, aeroplanes, computers ........ Still a keep for me. SpinningSpark 20:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, school books are not reliable - that has long been the case, although I admit to not always being sure why. Lulu is Lulu as far as I am concerned - no reason why McKnight couldn't get it published "properly" and a Masters is nothing. I didn't say that being a different design invalidates it - there are, for example, many hundreds of patents for fork-like eating implements but very few have ended up in production. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the patent was all we had, an article may not be justified, but the coverage that exists (see also [15], [16], [17], [18]) is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your sources are better than those from Spinningspark but they don't really say anything about Boone. They appear to be just passing mentions, which would perhaps indicate her bio could be redirected to some article about ironing boards where we could insert a sentence or two about her invention. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• She already gets a mention in the Ironing article. I would suggest seeing what sources others can find, and if there's consensus that there's not enough for a separate article, expanding the content there and redirecting. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure thing. But there is nothing worth merging from the bio as it currently stands - it is all primary sourced stuff etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, the references aren't brilliant but, adding what we have here, they seem sufficient overall to me bearing in mind the guidance in WP:Notability (people) that we may combine multiple independent references, even where they are not individually substantial. Merging would not be an improvement for source or target. Thincat (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a collective failure to understand GNG here. The sources do not discuss her in any depth and most of those proffered so far are not reliable and/or repeat the same minimalist information. I can accept a redirect but no more. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: keeping in mind Boone's time period, is it likely that there are offline sources? I would be interested if searches in Newspaper.com or other archives might reveal more RS. I'm currently leaning towards a keep based on the assumption that offline sources do indeed exist.Thsmi002 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it must appear that I am badgering but this is getting ridiculous. I do hope that whoever closes this does not accept a keep !vote on the speculative grounds that something might exist somewhere. If that was a valid rationale then there would be no real purpose in 90% of AfDs, nor even in notability guidelines because anything can be speculated to have something recorded about it somewhere at some time. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The point being made is that no one has yet come here saying they have done a search of a decent American newspaper archive and found nothing. This is why we have presumption of notability – not everyone has access to the relevant archives for a subject. And no, it does not make AfD pointless. The purpose of AfD is to take a closer look. But I am happy to stick with keep on the basis of what we have already. SpinningSpark 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have searched as best I can. That is what WP:BEFORE is about. The onus should be on anyone who wants to keep it to prove that it should be kept. I am also astonished at the number of people who have turned up here in short order, mostly experienced and yet seemingly clueless about sourcing. Which projects have been notified to cause such an astonishing influx of commenters in such a short space of time? Most things I send to AfD don't get this many responses in a full week and I do suspect there may be an underlying she was a "black woman in a white man's world" sort of feeling as the basis for keeping - it isn't, and nor are any of the sources thus far provided. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being a successful "black woman in a white man's world" can be a significant part of her story, Sitush. The color of our skin shouldn't matter, but it does and has in the United States, especially during her time period. Apparently, she was also a former slave. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that but it also doesn't alter the fact that there are people who contribute to Wikipedia and go way, way over the line in attempts to address what they perceive as systemic bias. Without sources that are reliable, independent and cover her life in some depth she is still not notable: we are supposed to be a reflection, not some pro-active campaign facility. I cannot see that source here but I can pretty much guarantee this article was created as a consequence of either Women in Red or Black History Month, and it is typical of the do-gooding nonsense that results from the similar Dalit History Month campaign. You can have a thousand sources that mention her name, many of which will just be jumping on the bandwagon (ie: one newspaper picking up off another) but we need quite a bit more than just a name-check. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sitush what do you mean by "do-gooding nonsense?" I find that people's good-faith efforts to write about individuals who are under-represented are hardly "nonsense," and if people make mistakes about notability, that's what AfD is for. And there is a systemic bias, especially from Boone's time period. She was a slave. She's highly unlikely to be covered in local news sources as there weren't a lot of black newspapers yet. However, her invention is important and, I've learned, was a game-changer in how people ironed. That's significant. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't know what I mean by "do-gooding nonsense" now then probably you never will. An example: if someone is a Dalit and LGBTQ then they seem to be able to scrape through GNG like no other person would do; it sometimes seems as though if they also had a disability such as just one leg then some people would be demanding immediate raising to FA status. It is ridiculous. Subaltern historians exist: let them write about the subalterns and we can reflect their writings. Yes, I know it seems impossibly unlikely but it does happen - they're good at that sort of thing, eg: E. P. Thompson, Marc Bloch and lord knows how many from the Indian subaltern school. We should not act as apologists for the mistakes, prejudices etc of our forebears: that is liberal wishy-washy stuff and I am more and more convinced by the piling-on here that it is such stuff which is driving it, not our policies and guidelines, which are basically being ignored. - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What you see, Sitush as "ignoring" guidelines, I see as reading the guidelines. When someone makes an important contribution, such as an important invention, especially when the odds are stacked against them, they pass #2 ANYBIO. That's clear. The thing is, that you seem very biased against what you dismissively call "liberal wishy-washy stuff" so you are unable to see that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I am aware of ANYBIO, thanks. She patented something; so did many other people. Not every patent makes it to production. Show the evidence that this one did, rather than some other patented by someone else. As I said above, there are hundreds of patents for fork-like eating implements but very few can be shown to have reached production and even fewer made any difference. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Petroski, Henry (1993). The Evolution of Useful Things. Pavilion. is good on this sort of thing. No mention of Boone, alas. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a sleeve board patented in 1884, years before Boone's. Of course, there are many patented after her also. The reason she has got passing mentions here and there is very probably because, yes, her slave/black/female background makes her an unusual case. But there is no meat to those mentions, hence the problem. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop making unfounded claims on people's motives. You couldn't be more wrong about what is driving my participation here, but as it's not relevant, please go to my talk page where I will be happy to explain to you my method for finding debates to participate in and my personal criteria for supporting an article. For someone who is so hung up on the quality of sourcing it is rather hypocritical to make assumptions on motives without evidence. I also note your claim that educational books are unreliable was not supported with a link to policy - more failure to practice what you preach. SpinningSpark 17:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a claim - I worded it to avoid that - and I didn't refer to you specifically with regard to what I did say. It is extremely worrying to me that we have admins here who seem not to understand our guidelines, though. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Firstly, there are a miniscule number of African-American women slaves or former slaves who were awarded a patent during the 19th-century. A miniscule amount of press coverage was afforded these women. According to the Smithsonian in McNeill, Leila (February 7, 2017), "These Four Black Women Inventors Reimagined the Technology of the Home":

In 1888, a woman named Sarah Goode applied for and was granted a patent in Chicago, Illinois. Goode had just conceptualized what she called the “cabinet-bed,” a bed designed to fold out into a writing desk. Meeting the increasing demands of urban living in small spaces, Goode invented the cabinet-bed “so as to occupy less space, and made generally to resemble some article of furniture when so folded.” Goode was a 19th century inventor who reimagined the domestic space to make city living more efficient. Yet unless you’re a very specific kind of historian, you’ve probably never heard of her name. She doesn’t appear in history books, and what she did remains largely unknown. The same goes for Mariam E. Benjamin, Sarah Boone and Ellen Elgin—all 19th century African-American women who successfully gained patents in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.

Secondly, it is unclear to me what you mean, Sitush, by this sentence, "I cannot see that source here but I can pretty much guarantee this article was created as a consequence of either Women in Red or Black History Month, and it is typical of the do-gooding nonsense that results from the similar Dalit History Month campaign." but I can tell you how it made me feel: hurt and targeted. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well sorry about that but crap is created. It isn't your fault that it is created because you didn't actually do it. Nowhere have I mentioned your name so perhaps try to get over it? - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sitush: what you're not understanding is that your words and actions can hurt others, even if you do not intend for that to happen. Rosiestep is expressing that to you and her feelings are valid. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sitush, let us agree to disagree regarding this article. But you mentioned Women in Red in a manner which I consider to be cavalier and disparaging. To be clear, I am referring to WP:WikiProject Women in Red, the community co-founded by Victuallers and me in 2015, which was shortlisted in 2016 by ITU/UN Women for the GEM-TECH Award. You and I have not exchanged harsh words before, Sitush; let's try to stay that course. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if I hurt you then I am sorry for that. But it won't change my opinion of that project, although I do acknowledge it is way better than the Dalit History Month project. I think far too many people on Wikipedia take offence at the first sign of a challenge: robust opinion is valid, we're not in kindergarten and, as a part-Yorkshireman, I tend to call a spade a spade, not a shovel. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your quote is another passing mention. She can have her place on this project via a redirect until some researcher actually does dig some stuff out (it happens - see my last reply to Megalibrarygirl just now). The fact that the source specifically says "[They] doesn’t appear in history books, and what [they] did remains largely unknown." is exactly the point - she fails GNG for a standalone article. All these attempts - DHM, BHM, WIR - to boost unknown people are effectively attempts to game the system. We are supposed to be a reflection, not a campaign, as I said above. If people want to campaign, go fork the project. - Sitush (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So your opinion is that these projects "Game the system?" and in the same paragraph you are trying to say how you want this AfD closed? Last I checked, Wikipedia was a collaborative effort. We can decide what goes in and what stays out collectively. You don't get to decide for all of us. And you still haven't addressed Rosiestep's concerns. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is my concern but obviously not every single thing they do: they are enablers, more than anything. I am not sure which of your WIR mate Rosiestep's concerns you feel I have not addressed but you and all the admins here really should know that redirects are common for people who lack significant independent coverage about their lives etc in reliable sources but, nonetheless, have a vestigial notability. The redirect can always be turned back into a full-blown article if information turns up via the subaltern historians etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her invention made a difference to how ironing was done. Even if we didn't have little biographical details, her work itself is important. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: The framing of "any old patent is inherently notable" is creating a straw man argument. The article needs more sourcing, but things such as a school textbook meet RS in terms of third-party publisher and fact-checking, it's not the Daily Mail. And it isn't "merely" getting a patent that is notable. It's OMG, the odds she overcame to get a patent completed and filed in her own name was amazing in her time and place, particularly given the odds against her. And the invention was notable, regardless of design changes. For my mother's generation in particular (you know, for whom a perfect home and perfect clothing became how they were judged), these things were a godsend. Once again, I think we have a "pre-Google sourcing" concern here, a problem that often hits with these biographies of 19th century people. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what muddies the waters searching for her, Montanabw is that there are several historic "Sarah Boones." The name is common and it's slowing research down on my end. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons we do not use school textbooks is, I think, because they oversimplify and lack any credible academic depth. They often screw things up big time, too, eg: NCERT controversy. I do accept the "OMG" point - I've never disputed it - but OMG isn't in any guidelines I've seen. - Sitush (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have looked at the article again in the last hour and can see some stuff has happened there that no-one has mentioned here. Combining the Smithsonian thing mentioned above with the ThoughtCo website and a book someone has linked at archive.org does it for me - thanks for finding that material. Any uninvolved person can feel free to consider this AfD withdrawn. I know a lot of you think I have been tough here but I spend most of my time dealing with issues of systemic bias etc and, well, the article as it stood when I first saw it, plus my own research (there are a lot of Boones out there) seemed to justify the nomination. Sorry if anyone thinks I have wasted their time but I do stand by a lot of the points I made above, eg: all of the stuff about passing mentions being insufficient, ANYBIO not applying, self-published works by people with Masters degrees being useless etc even though others thought otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes I'm here because of Women in Red being mentioned. Not sure why this is relevant, but it invites this defence. I see here that the concept of notability is getting confused with fairness. Its not as if notability is under threat - we have umpteen of thousands of notable women identified who are notable and missing from Wikipedia. (It is important that there were sensible rules for sitting on the buses in Alabama.) These rules are the instrument of fulfilling values and rights. We don't need to change the rules of notability in this discussion, but where our existing Wiki-rules prevent us from attaining the values and rights we aspire to share, then those rules will need to be changed. Victuallers (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]