< 1 January	3 January >

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. If someone were to create an article on the song then a redirect there would be in order Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nash[edit]

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

Only one somewhat notable work with Don Diablo. Starlight could be its own article, but the artist himself doesn't have any significant coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question Wouldn't Starlight satisfy this criteria of WP:NMUSIC? Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. SeraphWiki (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has an "and" credit for that song, but if Starlight existed as an article, he would certainly redirect to that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work. SeraphWiki (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3E Accounting[edit]

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

small accounting firm without notability. The refs are PR, as would be expected from the size. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage consists of the following:

sources where the company (the owner) talks it about itself - this fails WP:ORGIND;
descriptions of trivial routine business-as-usual coverage such as increase in employees, new offices opening, and using the organization's personnel as story sources, etc. -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Wikipedia is not a platform to create articles for free advertising per WP:NOTADVERTISING and Commercial organizations (NCORP). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in HighBeam either. SeraphWiki (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3E Accounting has grown rapidly to a significant industry player with their own homegrown international network with members in more than 54 countries, 86 offices, and 1,300 staff in just six years. The press is far more than regional in Singapore, and dismissing the press used looks to be prejudicial towards sources from outside of America.Tiffanyzhang (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm prejudiced against sources that are promotional puff pieces that are either press releases or based on them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this Article because

removed the sources where the company (the owner) talks it about itself - pass WP:ORGIND;
many independent sources include government web site, reputable news publishers, and etc sources. pass WP:CORPDEPTH
the article does not has any advertisement per WP:NOTADVERTISING and state fact only with independent source verification.
3E Accounting is a significant industry player worldwide and cover in more than 50 countries. verifiable independently "First Home-grown Global Accounting Company to Reach 50 Countries". 29 June 2017. ----Aiaccount (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. References rely on interviews and quotations from company sources or materials provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the editors of some publisher have visited their office for verification. It is not solely rely on interviews or quotations from company sources or materials provided by the company as claimed. Example "Robot helps firm be family friendly"."Let a robot go to the office for you".. Aiaccount (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How do you know they visited their office "for verification"? In any case, this straitstimes.com reference relies exclusively on material provided by the company is based on this press release, therefore failing WP:ORGIND. This todayonline.com reference relies exclusively on an interview with their CEO and is therefore no independent of the subject and also fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: You can see in this straitstimes.com reference and This todayonline.com article, the picture clearly show that the media and the minister have visited their office. this press release is being prepared by 3E Accounting only after these articles are published. Aiaccount (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very common practice that the company would issue the press release one day later so that the media or newspaper gets their "scoop" first. It doesn't really matter though. There is no independent analysis or opinon in any of the newspaper articles and the articles also regurgitate info and facts provided (or "verified" as you put it) by the company. They are not intellectually independent and fail ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAR Technology[edit]

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

an extremely small non-notable POS company--a great deal of promotionalism was removed from the article, see earlier versions. Refs are PR. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources consist of directory listings, routine announcements, company (owner) talking about itself, etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:NRV. Wikipedia is not a platform for creating articles for free advertisement per WP:NOTADVERTISING and Commercial organizations (NCORP). Agree with nominator "a great deal of promotionalism was removed from the article." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP; mostly promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Everybody - I'd like to make this page as compliant as possible. I'm curious about the comment "a great deal of promotionalism was removed from the article". The only thing removed from the page since it went live was the list of key people, which made perfect sense because it's in the infobox. I was very careful not to include any promotional-type wording and just kept to the bare facts. I do understand the comments about the sources and I will find other sources. In the meantime, I'll remove the questionable sources and only keep the independent ones. I'd really like to keep the page up and get it to the point where it's compliant. I completely agree and understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for creating articles for free advertisement and I hope you didn't see any advertising in the page. Other than the sources, is there any feedback you can give me to improve the page? Kandi111777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the list of staff was just part of it. Just previously, a list of customers was removed, There remains a char=== table of revenue by quarters, whichis excessive detail for a small company. But the question is whether there remains sufficient reliably souced material to justify notability . I dont think its li kely that there would be in such a small firm,and I wonder about the meaning of "I'd really like to keep the page up". I assumet hat means you have a direct conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked HighBeam and I see in-depth sources that might support notability:

"PAR Technology Unit Wins Federal Contract Award of Nearly $14M" [1]
"PAR Technology Subsidiary Gets USD23.5m US Navy Contract"
"PAR Technology Gets USD5.2m Contract from US Navy" [2]
"PAR Technology Corp. Wins $48 Million U.S. Army Contract" [3]
I am leaning towards oppose - the coverage is in depth, notable and has information about multiple subsidiaries, as well as announcements about major hiring decisions of the company. The article needs improvement, which I would be willing to work on.SeraphWiki (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighBeam is not a source. It includes publications that are sources, some but not all of them reliable for the purposes of notability It would clarify matters to specify the source, for the ones listed are either a local business journal,which is one of a network of publications that exit for the purpose of publishing press releases and notices. or a very minor trade journal. Every one of the articles--or at least the visible parts of them--appear to be in the category of press releases. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much common sense that a significant government contractor is notable. There are a lot of indisputably notable companies for which the major sources are going to be trade or industry publications. These are high quality sources for determining the notable players in certain industries. The notability policy is intended to prevent the proliferation of articles that have no encyclopedic value (advertising). If this problem keeps coming up where we delete content of encyclopedic value because of a technicality in the way a policy is worded, then the policy should be updated. For example, Exxon's fuel additives subsidiary is indisputably a notable company which accounts for the majority of Exxon's revenue but can only be sourced to publications like Tribology & Lubrication Technology and Chemical Week. These are actually better sources than mainstream media for their industries.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of thousands of government contractors. what counts as significant? There are two possibilities--one is market share in an important market-- the other is a technical (usually military) specialty. Trade publications vary in reliability for encyclopedic purposes, as does the information they provide. The production figures in a major trade publication are reliable, and that's already included in the routine data provision for primary sources in

WP:RS; the question is whether the inclusion of production figures in such a source, or a notice of a change in executives, or the like, are RSs to show notability. , They are enormously useful to people in the field of course, but that's something different. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough information in secondary sources for a standalone article, then I think the company is probably notable. The sources are reliable and they are secondary sources. Promotional language should not be copied from the sources in any case, and it would be COPYVIO if it was. As long as the article is written in an enyclopedic tone and there is enough content for a standalone article, then I think the article should be kept an improved (which I can do). SeraphWiki (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Where in the notability guidelines or content policies does it say a significant government contractor is notable? Guidelines and police are what we go by. And what is the definition of "significant" in this context that is policy related? One person's treasure is another person's dross. The sources above that are listed on High Beam are company announcements, routine business as usual, carried by publications that publish these announcements.

This kind of sourcing is discounted in WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Please read these, it only takes a minute. Also, due to the nature of these sources they fall short of WP:NRV - evidence that this topic has garnered objective evidence [demonstrating] that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Company announcements are not objective evidence - these lack independence from the company.

Exxon's fuel additives subsidiary would have to be proved notable on Wikipedia by multiple independent source coverage of the subsidiary with sources that are independent of each other, on Wikipedia. Self published sources can print or publish whatever they want on other websites. Thank you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Market share is something that has to be covered in reliable sources and probably show how this is a significant impact in the world. It doesn't matter if these are in trade publications or regular commercial magazines. Also, trade publications are just as likely to carry company announcements as other content - companies are their bread and butter. The sources above are not secondary sources -they do not provide author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources WP:ANALYSIS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that sources like Closeup Media and the Business Journals are not independent, reliable sources has no basis in any policy whatsoever. I would never use WaPo for an opinion or analysis, but I would easily use it for a basic fact like "The President made an announcement that the country is at war." These are well-known independent media sources in an academic database, they are not press releases, and an article should not be deleted because you, for some reason, think they are self-published sources. There are some services that republish press releases and transcripts, but if an article says "The PAR Technology news release describes BBG as a "networked global media agency." then it is indisputably an independent secondary source for PAR's statement.SeraphWiki (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for reading WP:NORG I know what it says Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization - as I said, if enough content for a standalone article can be reliably sourced, an article should not be deleted. Here's another part of the policy you should read: However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies...examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports - Is there some way the policy could be made clearer? The problem with NORG is that the way most editors read it, it would be stricter than GNG, while completely missing its purpose - to prevent the creation of very short, promotional articles about Aunt May's Etsy bead shop. It should never be used to delete articles about major companies that can be sourced to specialist/expert business sources.SeraphWiki (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the status of Closeup media and Business journals has a basis in policy makes no sense at all. Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't mention Closeup media or Business journals or refer to any specific publication. I'm sorry to say, Closeup Media's focus seems to be disseminating business announcements and press releases [4], [5]. There is no content that isn't one of these. And the article chosen from a Business Journal segment in New York doesn't even have an author [6]. Also, in that article, obtaining a $14 million contract "to provide operations and maintenance"

(maintenance = janitorial services, operations = managers for janitorial service) does not seem to denote notability. Merely routine-run of the mill business stuff. Funding and setting up janitorial services for an entity does not seem to be a notable event worth covering in Wikipedia. There is nothing requiring specialists or expertise in this content or in any of the other linked source here and in the article. And yes Business Journals is capable of disseminating PR announcements for a company, just as it is capable of normal (journalistic) coverage of other events.---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High Beam is generalized database service that carries newspapers, magazines, and some scholarly journals. It is not an academic database. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. Sources don't stop being WP:RS because they are business sources, and notability is not conferred by what you think is important. I don't know why you think the contracts are for janitorial services. These are for things like technology integration, and the total of the contracts exceeds $100 million. The article says "the PAR subsidiary will transmit Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and other broadcasts, and maintain the REKTS equipment" - This article is about a company, not about an event - please do not vote to delete content based on these types of poorly reasoned, misguided comments. SeraphWiki (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, they are expert/specialist sources which is probably why you are misreading them and think they are about "janitorial services". It would take a knowledgeable editor to sort out the promotional language from the meaningful parts - technology integration is a real thing in the military. For example, when they change the control panels of Apache helicopters to require fewer buttons presses in combat, that is a form of technology integration - this UAS for Apache Teaming is an example of technology integration - obviously notable, if you understand what the articles are talking about. The language looks like nonsense but these contracts are not "janitorial maintenance" - the contracts are for Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance and Geographic information system related work - the article content can be revised to discuss the company in non-promotional terms by an editor with competence to edit on what is a difficult and specialized topic, but a selective reading of WP:NORG (routine run of the mill business stuff) should not be a basis to delete an article that would pass WP:GNG.SeraphWiki (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I never said sources stop being WP:RS because they are business sources. I said these are specific articles are reporting routine unremarkable business as usual information. The only source I said was disseminating PR as its regular content is Closeup media. I'm not misreading anything. Please don't cite the wrong article that I was talking about. I was talking about this article [7], from which it cannot be inferred it is about technology integration. The article doesn't say "the PAR subsidiary will transmit Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and other broadcasts, and maintain the REKTS equipment". If it "takes a knowledgeable editor to sort out the promotional language from the meaningful parts", well I am such an editor. But please refrain from making personal comments at AfDs.

The article you cite is a blatant PR and a routine business announcement [8]. This article is not acceptable RS. It is not independent of the company. Here is that announcement in another web location [9]. Here is more PR [10]. There is nothing about "technology integration" in any of these. I don't know what that article on the Apache Helicopter has to do with anything here. PAR technology isn't even mentioned. Maybe the Apache Helicopter is notable - but it has nothing to do with this topic. Also, please stop with the personal comments such as "poorly reasoned, misguided comments" and "non-promotional terms by an editor with competence" and "what I think is important". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just one article, why don't you actually go look for sources like I did before commenting at AfD? And yes it does say "maintain the REKTS equipment" etc, in the fourth paragraph. If you can't be bothered to read the source, please do not advocate for deletion. Yes, these publications are independent of the company. None of these publications are owned by the company. The civility policy doesn't shield you from criticism based on comments you actually make in discussions, and I don't think I've said anything uncivil. However, misquoting me could be considered uncivil.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And certainly misrepresenting what I cited is uncivil. I never cited partech.com - I cited a secondary, independent source for that announcement. WSJ is an additional secondary source for that announcement. Under WP:NORG, if there are a lot of secondary sources for these types of announcements the company can be considered notable. The main issue is whether there is enough content for a verifiable stand alone article. "Routine" announcements of $85 million dollar contracts to work on advanced military technology for battlefield applications is actually not a type of "routine" announcement that is covered by the policy, as long as it is reported in secondary sources. SeraphWiki (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The publications are not owned by the company. The specific articles are not independent coverage. The quotation is from a PR announcement as I just demonstrated, wherever it is located. No WSJ link was cited. Do you have the WSJ link? It is probably the same content. I'm not seeing anything about " Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance and Geographic information system related work" in these articles. And the focus of the articles is funding (via contracts) for the company. Notability is not inherited WP:INHERITORG from other notable topics, and funding is routine unremarkable business as usual information WP:CORPDEPTH. The civility policy is pretty clear. WP:NPA applies to all discussions across Wikipedia. There is a saying, "comment on content, not on the contributor".---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article has a few quotes from a press release does not mean it is not an independent source. The purpose of the policy is to prevent promotional advertising, this is both a legal requirement and crystal clear if you read the entire policy. This line of reasoning really misses the mark. As for what you do or do not see in the sources, I can't read them for you, they are cited above and there are more available in HighBeam and EBSCOhost, which are both academic databases. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentially, I do a lot of work at AfC and I would consider notable any company for which I could find over 100 sources in EBSCOhost that are not passing mentions but entirely about that company, in fact I err on the side of rescuing articles when possible where the available sources are far less overwhelming than this - as long as a standalone well-sourced non-promotional article can be written I don't see any need for deletion. Otherwise, it would require deleting a large amount of business-related content from Wikipedia, because no company would be able to pass notability under this definition, unless it had been involved in litigation or some kind of scandal. That is not the way the policy is supposed to be applied.SeraphWiki (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability,in particular they are not *intellectually* independent and fail WP:NCORP. References that rely on company announcements fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only thing clear from this discussion is that WP:NORG needs clarification. The policy says that most of the time these companies do pass notability. Editors should not be overzealous or overlystrict about this policy to delete companies for which more sources most likely exist behind paywalls - like analyst's reports. The specialized guidelines for commercial organizations have more information on this, and it seems to have come up before but editors are still ignoring the guidelines that have been provided there to exclude sources they don't like. SeraphWiki (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Arthur[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet general notability nor notability for entertainers. Fails. AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, my PROD concern was 'Non-notable magician. Not significantly covered in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO. His stage productions don't appear to be notable so he fails WP:ENT.' It should be said that the article has changed significantly then and I haven't yet reviewed it properly, though glancing over it there appears to be rather a lot of original research and a lack of reliable sources. PriceDL (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: having trimmed the edited article of some original research, the only new claim to notability is that he was the subject of a TV episode on Animal Planet. This still fails WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. PriceDL (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As expected, my previous edit was reverted. I have no interest in pushing for the changes as I feel the article should be instead deleted, but please be aware that a lot of the content is back to being original research and a lot of the content that appears sourced is in fact not backed up by the sources. PriceDL (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:18, 4 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 Alternative pleading. Seems like we have consensus that this is redundant to the other page, and apparently everything useful has been merged over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative facts (law)[edit]

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

Term appears in no legal dictionary and citations do not show a fixed meaning or noteworthy usage in law. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick read suggests it may be duplicative of alternative pleading. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Duplicative of alternative pleading, which (unlike this) is actually a legal term of art. Allowing this article to exist creates the false impression that "alternative facts" is an actual legal term, and all this page does is describe the way alternative pleadings work, in a slightly different way. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article seems to have useful content and alternative pleading is a rather short article SeraphWiki (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have tried to move relevant information. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite what Breitbart wants people to believe, "alternative facts" is not a real legal term. Any useful material in this article should be moved to the article alternative pleading. Then this article should be deleted, unless consensus favors the possible alternative option of turning this article into a redirect to alternative pleading, which I would also be willing to go along with. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart has nothing to do with anything. 18 citations are given and not one is Breitbart nor related to it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectanybody searching for this inaccurate legal term is gonna be looking for information on alternative pleading, which is the same thing under a more correct name. Classic redirect case. 89.240.130.238 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GX Logic Modeler[edit]

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

Can't find any independent references for this old software, not even from the 2006 era when it was available. The description is at https://web.archive.org/web/20051004064217/http://www.gx.ca:80/EN/main/653/13309.html. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable software. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Spirit And Spirituality[edit]

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

Seemed like a speedy delete but was not exactly sure which category to put a non-noteable book under. One source provided discussed another book entirely, while the second source came up with a 404 error. Comatmebro (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:NBOOK. Comatmebro, books are not covered by CSD A7, although if an article is clearly promo it can be tagged with G11; perhaps PROD would have been the better first solution and then bring it here if that fsails to delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kudpung กุดผึ้ง Thank you for the feedback! Comatmebro (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a really helpful article; no notability indicated by given text. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- We cannot have an article on every book that anyone chooses to publish. WP is not for ADVERTs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Kaif[edit]

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

Her sister may be notable, but she is not. Has had a couple of minor roles in films. More problematically, all but one of the sources are not actually about her - and the one that does mention her is user-generated and therefore unreliable. I found this which is a short article about why she can't get any more acting roles, and this bit of clickbait, but I don't see enough coverage for a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks to me as if she is just someone with a well-known relative who has yet to make her own way in life. She may have potential but hasn't realised it yet. Perhaps the article has been created too soon. I cannot see why anyone would create an article about her as she is now so I would delete it, but it seems to depend on how notable is notable. Ziggy (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom SeraphWiki (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humans of Hindutva[edit]

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

A deleted web page can be described in Freedom of expression in India or any related pages, WP:WITHIN Safe My Edit (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Humans of Hindutva is unsuitable to be described in either Freedom of expression in India or any related pages like Internet censorship in India because the article does not fall under any of these. Another important point is that it has multiple reliable sources (like Quartz, The Wire (Indian web publication), ScoopWhoop, Hindustan Times) independent of the subject that provide more than just a mere trivial mention. So it should remain an independent article. Che12Guevara 10:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che12Guevara (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable deleted Facebook page that was covered by other unreliable sources (thewire.in, scoopwhoop}. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are thewire.in, scoopwhoop non-reliable? Che12Guevara 17:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete It should be deleted as per WP:PROMO and sources are not reliable. Anmolbhat (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why WP:PROMO? Che12Guevara 17:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete Clearly does not meet WP:GNG to have a separate article. A passing mention can be made in Freedom of expression in India. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only sound policy-based arguments here are those from editors arguing for deletion. It's very obvious that some form of off-wiki canvassing has taken place here, and that sock/meat-puppetry is occurring. Thankfully these closes are made based on policy arguments, not volume. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Maupin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating on behalf of User:ZinedineZidane98. My action here is only to provide technical assistance completing the nomination; I am neutral. Original (but mis-placed) rationale was, Article subject is still not mentioned as notable in a single reliable source. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, 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)).

delete Lacks RS with which to establish notability. Sources in article do not treat subject in depth. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging the three active participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Maupin: Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs), C.J. Griffin (talk · contribs), and Pburka (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources CNN, Reuters and The Nation are all independent and reliable. Notability criteria for a journalist easily met by his position at RT, which is certainly above and beyond "a notable regional newspaper" or "notable internet magazine"[[11]] Joseph dejacque (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the references are either minor PR, or his own work DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources currently in the article are either not significant or not independent. A COI source linked to RT recently asked for retention citing a slew of articles that mentioned Maupin in passing or not at all. If Maupin's apparent employers can't find significant coverage, it probably is not there to be found. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interesting. Other RT reporters have pages... Lindsay France, Ed Shultz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.135.167 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/the-commies-next-door/Content?oid=1958161 Eggishornn is bluffing. Every single one of those pieces mentions Maupin. A few of the articles listed do feature Maupin significantly. The Cleveland Scene piece is biographical. The Atlantic Wire article focuses entirely on comments he made. Maupin's presence on the ship to Yemen was part of an international incident. — 2604:2000:7140:3400:D0D8:F217:144B:CF42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Maupin is a noted journalist among alternative media. Many less significant journalists have pages of their own. The page is being manipulated with the purpose of slandering Maupin and by proxy alternative media. User:ZinedineZidane98 should be removed as he has demonstrated a personal motive to his editing. — StefanHolden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:00, January 4, 2018 (UTC) (UTC).

Keep - Maupin is a respectable and professional journalist. Deleting his Wiki would erase his contributions and do a disservice to youth interested in alternative politics. This is clearly politically motivated — 100.12.24.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:43, January 4, 2018 (UTC) (UTC).
keep Caleb Maupin is a well-known journalist with a lot of experience. he is respected around the world and has made multiple contributions to the world of journalism as well as politics his sources are valid and can be backed up through multiple media sources. removing this article would be an insult to journalism and media as a whole. — 108.30.120.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:54, January 4, 2018 (UTC) (UTC).
Keep — Yuri8674 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep — 12.219.195.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Caleb Maupin has interacted with president trump before by asking him a question relating to relations with Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmQtvk5elYc this proves his notability. — Jackalantern94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Caleb Maupin is a very well known journalist that interacts with many notable figures. He has traveled to many countries to report first-hand many situations. In accordance with free speech, it would be a shame for such a well known and notable journalist to be silenced by removing this page. It is my opinion that this page should be kept, and even promoted in the interest of keeping true journalism alive.
Keep - Caleb Maupin is a well-known and prolific journalist with a robust online following comparable to other journalists with Wikipedia articles. He is also one of the most well-known figures in the American left currently. Thus, I see no reason why he does not meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.79.235.169 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow. Hehe. See what I'm up against here? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it felt the same for me just before Christmas when I was walking through town and came across a flash mob of Santa Clauses racing the other way. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Why does ZinedineZidane98 continue to actively misrepresent the truth throughout this process? For months he has been working to get this page removed for obvious political reasons. He went as far misrepresenting Maupin's 2013 CNN interview on the talk page. He has also continually been removing references to Maupin's debate with Augustus Sol Invictus which was promoted by Julian Assange. https://twitter.com/julianassange/status/899139189060632576?lang=en Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caleb_Maupin#ZinedineZidane98_has_a_political_agenda_-_He_should_be_blocked_from_this_page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7140:3400:61F9:8443:A37E:FE0A (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated this for deletion three years ago for lack of notability. At that time, Pburka mentioned the Cleveland Scene article as "significant coverage in a reliable source". It is that; it is also a local newspaper report of a local event, and clearly describes Maupin as one of two leaders of a group with fewer than ten members. The article was kept.

I don't see that anything has changed since then, that any truly substantial and independent national or international coverage has been added to the very tenuous list of references. He has four books listed on Google, all published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How about the fact that he is now writing regular columns for China.org.cn? http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2017-10/18/content_41752768.htm, http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2017-12/16/content_50105823.htm, http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2017-09/24/content_41630454.htm. How about the fact that he was a speaker at the World Festival of Youth and Students in Sochi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrpoS7BWgNc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7140:3400:61F9:8443:A37E:FE0A (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is obviously either canvassing or socking going on here, likely both. The one article offered above that qualifies as a reliable source is a local newsweekly (and a minor one, at that) talking about Maupin in the context of being one of two leaders of a 10-person group from nearly a decade ago. That is not a significant piece of journalism about Maupin. Absolutely everything that contains the words "Caleb Maupin" one could Google was then shoveled in whether those articles are about Maupin at all or not and without regards to the source quality in an attempt to demonstrate coverage. This is ridiculous and weakens the argument that Maupin is notable in Wikipedia terms, not strengthens it. When an editor need to troll through Washington Examiner, Youtube, Breitbart, The Free Beacon and even Infowars to find one-sentence quotes and the like to try to demonstrate notability they've actually demonstrated the opposite. Attempts to offer up sites controlled by the China Ministry of Information or the Russia Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications as WP:RS are also not persuasive and further the impression that foreign state-controlled actors are attempting to promote a profile of Maupin as a serious journalist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eggishorn, you are misrepresenting the truth, again. Info-wars republished an entire article written by him presenting analysis of drugs. It wasn't a single sentence: https://www.infowars.com/drugs-duterte-the-nature-of-imperialism/ He has been the subject of news stories from Reuters, The Nation, The Atlantic.

Comment "Attempts to offer up sites controlled by the China Ministry of Information or the Russia Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications..." Eggishorn, how is this even an argument? Because Russian and Chinese entities promote him he shouldn't have a page? You are clearly being an activist here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.135.167 (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters and other news outlets have done stories about him in different parts of the world

He was quoted in Reuters as a leader of the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2012. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-occupy/occupy-wall-street-marks-anniversary-with-smaller-party-idUSBRE88G0P720120917?i=10 Reuters, 2012

He has been treated similarly in The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/occupy-celebrates-two-years-resistance/ https://www.thenation.com/article/global-noise-worldwide-debt-protests/

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/18/occupy-wall-street-reunites-five-years-later-it-never-ended-for-most-of-us

The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/occupy-wall-street-waging-civil-war-us/327436/

The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/five-years-anniversary-occupy-wall-street-zuccotti-park-new-york-protestors-banks-a7314006.html

In 2015 he was on an Iranian ship to Yemen creating an international incident. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-iran-ship/iranian-ship-carries-aid-and-activists-into-waters-off-yemen-idUSKBN0O20I120150518 Reuters, 2015

The ship to Yemen made quite a stir: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3087859/Iran-aid-vessel-not-escorted-Iranian-warships--activists.html The Daily Mail, 2015

https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/dont-block-the-yemen-rescue-boat/

http://iacenter.org/nafricamideast/yemin051415/

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201505161022226714/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7140:3400:61F9:8443:A37E:FE0A (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was promoted by Julian Assange

He had a debate with Augustus Sol Invictus, who was a key organizer of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. The debate was promote by Julian Assange of Wikileaks. https://twitter.com/julianassange/status/899139189060632576?lang=en

Also noted here: http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/12/05/debate-revolutionary-left-vs-revolutionary-right/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.135.167 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone gonna go ahead and delete this article then? I have no idea how... an admin is needed I presume? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I cannot find references and reviews of his works. I cannot see any notable awards or any impact a particular story has created. (An example of a notable journalist would be Barkha Dutt, whose stories have been widely covered and debated upon). However, this person seems to have no significant achievements. PressTV and RT are not exactly credible free media, they are propaganda outlets which I would rate similar to Infowars or Brietbart. Simply working as a journalist in one of these outlets is no claim to fame. I am a bit curious at all these keep votes by new accounts which seems like a campaign to keep this page. I hope the closing admin will disregard these. I went through some of the links posted above, but these are either unreliable sites or only a name drop. There are also some blatant false claims by some of the accounts here. For example

He was quoted in Reuters as a leader of the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2012 Link WRONG The article says said one protester, Caleb Maupin, 24, of Queens. It doesn't say he was a leader.
He has been treated similarly in The Nation [12],[13] WRONG no mention of leader, just an individual person who got arrested. It actually talks about an interview with RT, his own employer.
Guardian [14] Just a brief quote.
Atlantic [15]. Very brief and this seems to actually talk about Maupin making claims without evidence. Unfortunately for Maupin (and Iran), he doesn't have any evidence of an actual OWS plot to take up arms. It's just aspirational talk. And strange aspirational talk, for that matter, considering that Maupin works for an anti-war group founded by former US Attorney General Rasmey Clark.
Others are either quotes (Independent and Reuters story about ship) or unreliable websites

There is nothing to suggest that his works are well known or if he has won any particular award. So delete.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DreamLinker, your arguments might have some validity if the only thing notable about Maupin was his work as a journalist. That's clearly not the case. He's page was created due to a lot of other stuff, that has been widely noted and commented on.

Keep All the arguments arguing for deletion seem to center around his work with PressTV and RT, as if this in itself makes him not notable. The logic of that is obviously politically motivated. These networks are the center of a big political controversy in the USA. That itself is an argument to keep. Prior to his work with these networks, he was a prominent Workers World Party and Occupy Wall Street activist. Sure, if all he did was get quoted a few times, there would be an argument here, but that's not the case. The Yemen ship was an international maritime incident. He was profiled in the mainstream press in Cleveland. He has interacted with Trump. He debated a prominent alt-rightist, and Julian Assange promoted it. Capital Research Group even created this documentary "America Under Siege" that contains extensive info about Maupin, with commentators analyzing his trajectory and work with Russia and Iran. He is certainly notable. The nitpicky criticisms of one quote or other don't change that. There's a whole forrest here, whether or not you like the trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.135.167 (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's clearly a WP:CANVAS campaign going on given the number of anonymous and first time editors participating in this discussion. In the previous discussion I !voted keep, because there was some coverage of the subject, and it wasn't being considered. However, in the two years since there has been no additional significant coverage of Caleb Maupin, if one discounts press releases from governments in Iran, Russia, North Korea, and Syria. It looks to me like Maupin is acting as a propagandist for these countries; whether he's doing so knowingly or not is open to interpretation. Of course, there are notable propagandists, but Maupin hasn't been able to achieve that (yet). We need independent sources describing his activism or propaganda, and there aren't enough to keep an article about him at this time. Pburka (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources present in the article are about him as such — the ones that represent reliable source coverage just namecheck Maupin's existence within coverage of other things, and do not have Maupin as their subject, while the few that do have Maupin as their actual subject are all unreliable sources, such as his own staff profiles on the websites of media outlets he's worked for and a YouTube video, that can never support notability in a Wikipedia article at all. This is not how you source a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's clearly a level of canvasing going on here, because a number of people have shown up here on this page and made the same arguments, consisting of "Maupin reports for news outlets associated with countries we don't like, so he shouldn't have a page." That's not an argument according to the wiki notability standards. Its also not consistent with the facts, as Maupin is not listed here simply for his work as a journalist. The number of mainstream sources that have included Maupin, written biographical articles about him, etc. is quite numerous, and listed above. He has done a great deal of newsworthy things, beyond working for TV networks with which certain people have an axe to grind. The above post makes reference to "press releases from governments in Iran, Russia, North Korea, and Syria." What is this even referring to? Maupin has not been included in an official government press release from any of these countries, to my knowledge, and if he was, wouldn't that, itself, be notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7140:3400:78B4:5442:B0CD:EFFA (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Maupin frequently appears in press releases from Fars, the semi-official news agency of Iran, e.g. [16][17][18]. Appearing in government press-releases doesn't make one notable. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources does. Where are these "biographical articles about him"? Pburka (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's been quoted. Wow!!!!! Amazing!!!!!!! Totally significant coverage. The extreme level of sock/meat-puppetry is amusing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage of the subject itself (as opposed to alleged coverage written by the subject). James (^talk/_contribs) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Every comment calling for deletion is basically the same straw man argument. It consists of "all he's ever done is get quoted in media agencies from countries we don't like." Read the posts. That's now why his page was created, and that's not why it should stay. He's done way, way more than that. There's an odd desperation here, and some clear political or should I say (geopolitical) motivations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.135.167 (talk) 03:26, 9 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 19:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free textbook[edit]

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

This article is non-notable and has multiple issues DeepcoverEditor (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Open educational resources. They are about the same thing it looks like.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually there are enough sources to establish notability for a standalone article, even though the article needs improvement. SeraphWiki (talk) 11:37, 4 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Media Watch[edit]

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

This article about an organization does not meet the Wikipedia requirements and should very well apply for WP:A7. Without even getting to the un-encyclopedic appearance of the page, this organization no longer exists and that has probably been the case for over 6 years now, it is not notable enough, its website is long inactive www.arabmediawatch.com - and of the three sources provided in the article, two are dead (well, now they lead to an archive), and the third one merely mentions the name of the organization's founder. I say delete. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is loads of coverage of this organisation in this book. Whether it is still operating is irrelevant to notability, per WP:NTEMP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Idea is that this is an organization that operated for a short time and disappeared leaving very little traces and coverage behind to justify being on Wikipedia. Let us examine the book you brought up:

Author: Kavitha Rajagopalan - a writer without a single (!) mention on Wikipedia.

The book: Has zero reviews on Google Books and only two reviews on Amazon (which could have been a friend or family member, with all due respect to her) - virtually unheard of.

Thanks for making my point stronger... Shalom11111 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books used as sources, and their authors, do not themselves have to be notable. It is a perfectly reliable source, being published by Rutgers University Press, and has many pages of coverage of Arab Media Watch. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is still not enough to suggest the article should remain; allow me to refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Shalom11111 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather strange that you should dismiss dozens of pages of coverage of this organisation in an academic book published by a major university press, while at the same time claiming that incidental mentions on web sites and in the press are sufficient to "think that saying Hillel Neuer is not notable is a bad(faith) joke". It is clear that you are not here to improve this encyclopedia, but to push a point of view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SeraphWiki (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there;s evidence it was significant in its time, and that's enough for notability. Notability ispermaenent, not just forthings in the present. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to DGG: I'm very surprised to see such a comment coming from an admin. Could you provide the said "evidence"? Because it does not exist in the article, at the very least, and as as I pointed out, that the only secondary source this article has is a 2005 news piece that merely mentions the name of the organization's founder for a quote. Do you believe that this article, considering (again) its state and notability, should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia? Shalom11111 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be surprising that an admin realises that the number of times the author is mentioned in Wikipedia and the number of Amazon reviews of a book are utterly irrelevant red herrings when deciding whether a source is acceptable? An academic book published by a major university press is pretty much the best kind of source that you can get. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has very extensive coverage in the book, published by Rutgers University Press, that I identified above. Together with other coverage found by the Google Scholar and Books searches linked in the nomination this is enough to pass the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which I have re-read as advised by Shalom11111. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Ehinger[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for an actual article. Her most notable role was in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, but even then it was not star billing. No significant coverage in secondary sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Graeme Galbraith[edit]

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

Person does not appear to be notable. Article describes involvement in local societies, having art in RA Summer Show, poetry in magazines, forthcoming (2012) self-published poetry collection, teaching career - nothing here to make him notable. Fails WP:BIO. Article originally created by User:Pagalbraith who appears to be subject's son. Tacyarg (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a place to memorialize people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 2 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 procedural close. Let's keep the discussion in one place, please. ansh 666 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Civil War (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The links on this disambiguation page are actually related to each other, with the top one being a broad concept article that is currently discussed at WP:RM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:24, 2 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Risk: Shadows of Medellin[edit]

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

This looks like some internal course segment within IMD's High Performance Leadership program HPL, which isn't even mentioned on IMD's article. Supporting articles are from the website itself. No independent notability from the class. No context of this being an indie film for general release. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Corporate spam of non-notable course. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I have nominated this article for speedy deletion (G12) as a copyright violation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BASICS Essex Accident Rescue Service[edit]

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

No indication that this charity meets the criteria of WP:NORG. I'm not able to find significant coverage in independent sources about it. All the references cited are from the organisation's own page. ... discospinster _talk 19:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable.Tacyarg (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 3 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Paul Steuer[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable former child actor who left acting in 1997. Quis separabit? 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable child actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR with his roles on Grace Under Fire and Little Giants. The Star Trek connection may also make the second criteria. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My guess is this has come up because of his recent suicide? Yet the sourcing/coverage throughout the years is there. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines, if because he departed acting at a certain point is a reason for deletion these days, many former actors should be up for deletion then. Rusted AutoParts 15:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines for the reasons outlined above. -- Bobak (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability guidelines including several films as well as several other notable events. JaxisMaximus (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion -- just| for everyone's benefit but in response to @ShelbyMarion, I had no idea he had committed suicide when I made the AFD. It is a tragedy and I certainly would have waited. I still think he is insufficiently notable but I see the keep votes, so ... Quis separabit? 18:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close. Oh christ, not this shit again. Here we have another example of a person who nominates an article for deletion for not being notable despite it being abundantly clear with just a simple look at the reference section of the article that there's like a million freaking reliable sources about the topic. We really need a stricter enforcement on deletion nominations because I'm so done with this nonsense. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@editorEهեইдအ😎, @Edwardx -- BULL. Keep votes or no, I still do not believe that he attained notability as an actor, the tragedy of his suicide notwithstanding. If I believed otherwise I would withdraw the nomination, as I have done in the Lanova AFD. Quis separabit? 02:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@editorEهեইдအ😎 WITH REGARD TO: Oh christ, not this shit again →→→ Watch your mouth. Your arrogant, obnoxious and ill-informed comments are inappropriate. @User:Rms125a@hotmail.com 02:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Rms125a@hotmail.com I think he was perfectly appropriate given how idiotic this deletion request is. I don't do any editing on Wikipedia but I felt strongly enough to actually sort this out to comment on your oversensitive reaction to legitimate frustration. Ikaruseijin (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikaruseijin : "I think ... "
What you think is irrelevant. And for someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia (unlike me who has been editing for the better part of 12 years) your hanging around AFDs and making ridiculous comments border on trolling. Quis separabit? 22:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. Another case of WP:BEFORE. Edwardx (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was on a notable television show. Notability doesn't expire because his acting career ended long ago. The Vital One (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Vital One -- I never suggested that "Notability doesn't expire because his acting career ended long ago.", just so you know. That was merely one point; Steyer admitted that he ended his career after Grace Under Fire because there were no offers as the explanation for his truncated career. That he "Was on a notable television show" does not satisfy in and of itself, btw. And the fact that you are contributing to AFDs after making a total of 8 edits since last October is a tad interesting. Quis separabit? 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not have an expiration date per Wikipedia rules. If having your career reach a dead end disqualified someone from having a Wikipedia article, we'd need to do a lot of deleting. Why you care about how many edits I have is beyond me, but if you have something to say go ahead with it.--The Vital One (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NACTOR well past despite being out of the business 20 years, and I'm getting really tired of these 'nom after death/in the news' articles; it's completely disrespectful and tacky. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mrschimpf -- I did not even know of his death when I initiated the AFD, just so you know, as explained above. I would never have initiated the AFD but would have waited given the tragedy of his death. And, again, keep votes and majority opinion aside, I still do not believe that he attained notability as an actor and stand by this AFD. Period. Quis separabit? 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His guest starring role in a Star Trek episode alone is notable and memorable, in my view, as he portrayed a significant character. Keep this article please. Donignacio (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim is he isn't notable enough but I somehow knew his name to look him up. I discovered he's also deceased. Maybe that's why it's marked for deletion? Some folks get a perverse pleasure out of erasing people once they're gone? Referring to whoever put in the deletion request to begin with. Ikaruseijin (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the nominating editor, he does admit above that he was unaware of this subject's passing. The timing of his day-the-death-is-reported nomination is a bizarre coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but find a few more sources maybe? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and Speedy close. - Since the article went up for deletion the person in question has died and numerous media sources are reporting on his death, therefore the person is notable enough for an article. Juranam (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and the SNOW drift is extremely high now). Enough material to show GNG, including that reports of his death have hit the international press. Agree with those above that extra sources should be added, but as the news channels have information about his death, there should be a plethora of available information now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He retired from acting at the grizzled age of 12. (per [19]) and, apart from his role in Grace Under Fire, I don't feel any of his roles are "significant" for WP:ENT to be met. His Star Trek role was exactly 1 episode, and no source supports the article's claim that his Little Giants role was a "starring" role. That said, I expect this will be kept for similar reasons that Alfie Curtis was kept; the media clearly feels that appearing in a single episode of Star Trek is sufficient to justify significant obituary coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One episode? Clearly not a Star Trek TNG fan. 67.168.86.194 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One episode isn't enough to establish notability unless he has ongoing news coverage for being a Star Trek character as with JG Hertzler or like Oliver in The Brady Bunch with Robbie Rist. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. Clandestine j (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments Juranam. Do find more sources. -Mardus /talk 19:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as originating actor of a continuing canon character in a major franchise beyond, for example, Buddy Ebsen's involvement as Tin Man. Herb Riede (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in Star Trek? That's not what makes him Wikipedia-notable, unless you can provide multiple news articles about his guest star appearance. His work on Grace Under Fire is far more notable as a primary credit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per arguments. DrachenFyre (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated by others. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His death has been widely reported from various major sources. That would not be the case for a non-notable actor. Cswrye (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable child actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.229.62.200 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep article created in 2006 and clearly notable under WP:NACTOR criteria. I've seen dozens of articles on far less notable people survive deletion proposals.--T1980 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is absurd. The end of an acting career doesn't automatically make a former actor no longer notable. If that were the case, a ton of articles would need to be removed. Regardless, this article meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. 69.50.53.189 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was clearly notable before his death, and the extent of major media coverage of his death would suggest that he certainly remains so now. Manning (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is an actor who died a few days ago... besides being notable for the guidelines of wikipedia, delete the page is not respectful.Lester Joice (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. A detailed obit on a major national entertainment news site (Variety (magazine)) should be more than enough. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes Wikipedia:NACTOR. Notability does not expire with his death.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR for his roles in Star Trek: The Next Generation and Grace Under Fire. Trout to the OP for nominating this for AfD and wasting people's time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR with ten credits on Star Trek: TNG. Krimsley (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Grace Under Fire as starring role for multiple seasons is his biggest role so that contributes to WP:NACTOR for sure. A single episode of Star Trek TNG on its own would not be enough. With obituaries coming out in news worldwide, would those be enough for him to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I resent 'feeding the troll' as we used to say, of course originating a major Star Trek character is notable. It turns out he was also on some kind of sit-com as well. Leondegrance (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Horrigan[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 19:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB is not a reliable source, and it is time to delete all articles lacking reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 3 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 speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. If interested in a potential merge, such discussion can occur outside of the purview of AfD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topkapi manuscript[edit]

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

This page is more fully developed in Samarkand Kufic Quran and Early Quranic manuscripts (section Topkapi manuscript) 149.154.232.200 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unclear reason for deletion. The page cited by the nominator seems to be about a manuscript held in a different location. They seem to have similar reputed historical origins (e.g., Uthman). Without great knowledge in this topic area, it seems separately notable to me. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YouWillRegret[edit]

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

The CSD tag still applies to this album yet was removed; nowhere does it say in the notability guidelines for albums that release by a major label is a credible claim to significance (notability is not inherited). An AfD has already concluded that the artist is not notable so this is still an A9 that unfortunately needs to go through the AfD process. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The artist is non-notable, and this article is poorly sourced. There's little to be found besides the run-of-the-mill track listings and iTunes entries. Not notable. Reyk _YO! 12:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'm not sure why the speedy tag was removed or why this was relisted it's clear it is notable in any way. Mattg82 (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I declined the A9 because that criterion requires that none of the contributing recording artists has an article, which isn't true for this album. Additionally, A9's "credible claim to significance" is a lower standard than notability. ansh 666 18:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Araus[edit]

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

Non-notable corp(?)/manufacturer and I can find no independent reliable coverage in any language. See also Kudpung's comment here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam for the Spanish agricultural machinery brand Metalfor, masquerading as a biography. Sources are mainly all blogs, ads, or primary. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per both of the above users. = paul2520 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. I tagged this for speedy deletion WP:A7 but it was surprisingly declined? Theroadislong (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not spam. I've read some lacks of respect about my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLACOPAILO (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and please do not add under expansion templates to articles that you create. Main space should not be used as a sandbox. This is not the only article you have created with this template. Domdeparis (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft like Draft:Construcciones Metalúrgicas Zanello. I am trying to tidy up several articles by FLACOPAILO and would like some time to complete this. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Domdeparis, do not disrespect with articles made correctly. Do not be impolite and if you do not understand the subject, try to form an opinion knowing. Thank you. FLACOPAILO (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Only one bolded recommendation may be in place per user at a time. Since Flacopailo made a keep recommendation a few lines up the discussion, I have struck through this one. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, there doesn't appear to be any indications of notability, references fail WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 9 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 procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:A7 and WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyappan Moolesseril[edit]

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

Non-notable poet. Not independent sources to indicate notability. WP:TOOSOON Mar11 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet gng, anybio, lacks rs and is artspam. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Florman[edit]

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

Article created by several WP:SPAs over the years. Setting aside the WP:COI issues, this is a pretty obvious fluff piece about an individual that fails WP:NBIO. Or, more formally, the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. References are bad: we have self-published ones, ones that don't mention him at all (like this, two or three interviews and/or press releases or their rewrites, and a tabloid-style description of him by his friend or girlfriend ([20]). Bottom line, he is a minor financier/celebrity that doesn't seem to pass the cut of notability, and who is only here because one or more persons got paid to write his bio for us (and didn't even do a particularly good job with formatting/etc.). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional, buzz-word plagued article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure fluff, in an inappropriate style, about a non-notable subject. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fowle[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale: "might be notable, needs further checking". Well, my further checking is not turning much, so here we are. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' The coverage Fowle receives is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable SamanthaFinmore (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find very little about him online, all of it already included in The New Hampshire Gazette. I don't think this article adds anything. Mortee (talk) 09:05, 7 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahavir Singh[edit]

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

A common name but appears to fail WP:GNG. Was previously erroneously BLPPROD'ed. Tagged as unsourced for years. Sitush (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced. Nothing in the bio suggests he would pass WP:NBIO anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Meh!-Actually, iff he was a justice of High Court/Supreme Court, he would pass but sadly, I don't find any references.Winged Blades^Godric 04:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This book confirms that the subject was a justice of the Allahabad High Court. There are more potential sources found by focussed Google Books and Google Scholar searches, but I don't have the time and inclination to investigate them now. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:, any Supreme Court Justice deserves a sure-shot WP entry.What's our current consensus about High Court Justices w.r.t Indian Judiciary?Winged Blades^Godric 11:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I rescued Pramada Charan Banerjee some years ago (but he was also a university vice-chancellor) and we do have a category for Indian High Court judges. I've no idea if being a HC judge alone is inherently notable. If it is, we're going to have an awful lot of stubs that have no chance of further development. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High Court judges in Commonwealth countries are generally regarded as being notable. Although not politicians, they do pass WP:POLITICIAN (which was clearly formulated for American judges) as holding national judicial office. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case I am happy to withdraw this nomination, with thanks to the IP for managing to source something that definitely relates to the article subject. I can only see snippet views of everything but the d.o.b. is there, as is the Justice title, so we've got verification. It is pretty much a complete waste of space as an article because my perusals of papers etc suggest we're never going to get beyond copying the directory summary that the IP links but, well, I'm often told that space here is cheap and thus worthless crap is perfectly ok. I guess the one merit is that if someone, sometime does actually want to look him up, they'll find it easier to read the directory here than to locate the GBooks version. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, though, Necrothesp mentions national office - this guy was a state-level judge from what I can see, working out of Allahabad High Court. I doubt it makes any difference. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian High Courts aren't really state courts in any case. They're national courts that are divided into sections to cover the country and only the Supreme Court of India is higher. The judges are appointed by the President of India. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 3 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 speedy keep. Nominator has expressed their wish to withdraw the nomination, and with no outstanding delete !votes, I am closing this pursuant to WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 23:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of legendary kings of Denmark[edit]

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

There is no historicity here and there can be little doubt that much of the article is original research which, as I understand it, is contrary to one of this site's precepts since all content must be verifiable. Please advise me if I misunderstand. Taken as a whole, the names are speculative and the list constitutes unencyclopaedic content which could mislead readers. It would be better to have just the individual articles for each person, providing their legendary status is verifiable by reference to the Sagas, and ensure that all of these articles are placed in a common category or, possibly, a common template for addition to each article.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same argument applies:

I notice that a similar case exists for Norway but the legendary kings have been incorporated into Petty kingdoms of Norway. This could be a solution for the above instead of merely deleting them. Ziggy (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list of legendary kings of Denmark is not historic and speculative by definition. That doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedic. I could see better organization of the list (for instance, organize it based on which annals or history an individual is mentioned in - Saxo Grammaticus', Adam of Bremen's, Svend Aggesen's, etc). But there is plenty of research discussing the subject, suggesting no problems with Notability. V really isn't a problem, it is only necessary that the list be made up of names reliable sources call legendary or mythical kings, not that these people need to really have been kings or existed. NOR is iffy because it is perfectly possible that no one source mentions every name in this list, but that is normal for lists. I don't see a big NPOV issue, but I could be wrong. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't OR. It is a list of figures whose historicity is doubted however they are attested in sagas and the like. This would be similar to, say, Prophets of Christianity or Kings of Israel and Judah (some are historical (external non-bible confirmation), some are attested to from biblical sources only - might be historical, might not). Or various lists we have on totally fictional characters.Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per above. The article certainly needs more references (especially for the dates provided), but isn't OR. ‑‑Yodin^T 17:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As previous mentioned above. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a developing consensus here and it suggest sthe site is more inclusive than I would have expected. Okay, can I withdraw the case and terminate this process? Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 21:40, 2 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aradhana (1976 film)[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NFILM, WP:GNG. -- HindWiki^Connect 16:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: ~~I agree, fails WP:FILM.~~ I'm only finding this as a source other than what's cited - and all of those are IMDb-like. Perhaps there are sources in other languages, making this a viable article for the Telugu wiki, e.g. = paul2520 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now convinced the article should stay - to Ammarpad's point that not all 70's movies, especially in other languages, are going to have a ton of web sources. And to Winged Blades of Godric's point, the UIowa reference should be added to the article. = paul2520 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep--This is a good-enough source.A film produced by a well-known director, featuring well-known actors and having songs sung by maestros ought to have got covg. in local sources.And, sources/reviews about Indian film(s) from 1970s (a time from when most newspaper archives aren't online) shall-not be expected to be online/easily available.Winged Blades^Godric 04:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't rely on Google search for 1970s movie that clearly predates the internet. Also how does it fails WP:NFILM? saying it fails only without explaining how is not really meaningful. See this review also, and the article has been improved after nomination, another reason for keep –Ammarpad (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources have been identified and added so that WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:43, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalakshmi (Kannada actress)[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:BLP, WP:GNG. No reliable sources provided here. -- HindWiki^Connect 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: Within a span of an hour that it was created, the nom has AfD'd this article. I do think we need to give some more time to see if this can establish notability. — LeoFrank ^Talk 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a person who was a recognized actress, performing lead roles in more than 50 films in Kannada film industry. Necessary citations, links to the articles(movies worked on), and linkbacks from articles(movies worked on), and even external links(confirming the person was an actress) and article-neutrality, are present. Can anybody please throw some light on any missing tags? Or any tags should be excluded? Thank you. -- Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ganeshprasadkp: Please go through WP:BIO and WP:GNG to improve the article further. FYI, recognized person does not implicitly become notable enough for an article to exist on their name. — LeoFrank ^Talk 06:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - If this page can be improved then we can nominate it for WP:PROD And if there are no corrections and improvement in these seven days, the administers will delete it. What you say? -- HindWiki^Connect 13:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC) — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 17:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No because PROD (and yes CSD) are for uncontroversial deletions. This is clearly not uncontroversial. My own vote is for keep as it appears that an actress in so many films will have the outcome of being notable. Egaoblai (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. A7-ed by DGG. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 05:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic Donc Pvt Ltd[edit]

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

Speedy deletion contested under A7 (by an IP) and there possibly is some claim of significance. However this new company simply doesn't meet GNG - there are hardly any sources of any note. The article is sourced to the company registrar and the like, and BEFORE doesn't show much else. Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 - there is literally no claim of anything and it's also promotional. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if borderline A7, it violates WP:PROMO and lacks independent reference to pass WP:NCORP. It will take extraordinary turn of events for a minor firm to become notable (in encyclopedia standard ) barely a year after its establishment. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:49, 2 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 merge to King's College School. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King's College School Lodge[edit]

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

This masonic lodge makes no claim of notability and I do not believe the article meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to King's College School especially in history section or any more appropriate position. The lodge certainly didn't deserve a standalone page but didn't deserve deletion either. The stub have historical and encyclopedic significance. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG.Tacyarg (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with King's College School - the data is certainly relevant to that topic, and should not be lost.Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, no need to delete outright. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't object to merging it, but there is not really any worthwhile content to merge. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Tau Podcast[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as "not notable" Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
del. Nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:N. I found this blurb here ([21]) talking about what a great podcast it is, but there's really no real outside coverage about it (and I'm about 95 percent certain that Born to Engineer is not a legitimate source). Unfortunately have to !vote delete (although I may subscribe to it!). Nomader (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, it was rated among the best science podcasts 2017 and best tech science podcasts 2017 by Player.fm. Further it got the best science podcast price from Quarz - just to have a few more examples. -Eio (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I translated part of the German article on this Podcast. Omega Tau is a science and engineering podcast which has the same right to be on Wikipedia as a book. Since it contains interviews to experts in the fields, it can be used as a source for scientific and technical information exactly as a book. To make an example, the episode about the ISS is an interview to the astronaut Paolo Nespoli. The episode on the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy is a 9 hours long interview to over 20 technicians, scientists and pilots directly involved in the project.

If Omega Tau was a scientific book with articles from its guests, no one would have doubts about the sufficient relevance for a Wikipedia article. -Eio (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm responding to your comment to my delete !vote and your comment here as well. The actual source that I'd love to look at is a WIRED Germany article that supposedly wrote about the podcast per the German version of this page (the dead link is supposedly here: [22]). I couldn't find it on archive.org though-- do you happen to have an archived version of it? The Quartz article also does help to establish notability. But Wikipedia requires that articles have "significant coverage"-- I tend to personally air on the side of being permissive, so if the Wired piece is detailed enough along with the Quartz piece, I'd be inclined to change to a weak Keep !vote, but the 'player.fm' pieces are just random playlists that seemed to have been generated by staff with no content.
- In response to your second comment-- just because a place interviews notable people or talks about notable things does not make it notable enough for an article. I listen to a large number of podcasts that don't qualify as Wikipedia articles because they aren't notable in themselves even though I really like their content. In this case, I still don't see enough to justify the article being kept (but I can definitely be swayed-- I just didn't find the sources in my own search). Nomader (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something from [ https://www.wired.de/collection/life/wissenschaft-podcasts-liste-weltraum-forschung-audio Wired.de] about Omega Tau. Unfortunately I cannot find the original link from the German article. A few more references: epcc, Flarm

In general, I suggest that if it is not clear that an article must be deleted, it is a good idea to leave it. Some interested reader might find it and the uninterested reader will not be disturbed from it. That is one of the great advantages of an online encyclopedia. It can be huge, but still the reader does not loos time with content he is not searching for. -Eio (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Notability (media) by any metrics. Unreferenced, mostly, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not seeing significant coverage for a scientific podcast (even seeing discussion above) to satisfy WP:N. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MetaShare[edit]

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

I PRODed with "No independent sources for GNG. Mostly promotion". The creator did not remove the PROD, but essentially contested it, so as a courtesy making this an AfD. I think now it is "no independent reliable sources for GNG". Not much sources seem to be there for NWEB Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I like to have a MetaShare presence at Wikipedia is to present a better picture of what cloud computing services and collaborative softwares available on the market. All the MetaShare's competitors are already at Wikipedia such as Dropbox, Google Drive etc. I tried to write the article fact-based without what can be considered as promotion according to Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. Galobtter is right there are not much sources for MetaShare on the web (yet). This is because MetaShare previously only was sold locally on the Swedish market under a different name. This is a first version of the article, but I (and hopefully the Wikipedia community) intend to improve it and its sources continuously.--Epicurus One (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, it has to be notable. That requires sources. Google drive has many sources (being quite popular and so covered in various tech website and in the news). If you can find swedish sources good, but it may be WP:TOOSOON to have an article on it - until it has more coverage. Those competitors have significantly more coverage and so have articles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails GNG and is WP:TOSOON. Hagennos (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 18:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. Doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (software). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Could be nominated for speedy deletion. Capitals00 (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is an additional application which runs on top of Office 365 Sharepoint. It is not an official offering by Microsoft but by another company. Unfortunately I cannot find the user-base statistics or any good third party reviews or even news offering substantial coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:09, 6 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 no consensus. In light of the previous AfD, there is not a strong enough consensus to delete. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hire Association Europe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe this fails WP:CORP. The previous AFD back in 2013 suggested possible avenues of notability, but my follow-up is not finding anything concrete that could be used to pass the notability guidelines. All I could find are press releases, incidental mentions, and an awards show. If sources exist I’d be happy to clean up the article, but I don’t want to waste time on a lost cause so I’m bringing it back here first. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 14:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I too find a lot of incidental mentions, though I did find a few that could contribute to some narrative about the organization. The problem, it appears, is that any significant info about its structure and history in the large is going to have to come from the organization itself. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 2 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Gahan[edit]

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

Delete Promotional, reads like an advertisement with puffery (e.g. "Has been called the Don Draper of social video"). No indications of real notability. Notability is not inherited. The listed "Awards" and inclusions in various lists are of no real indications of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UK 44[edit]

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

No reference at all, does not meet notability criteria as per WP:BCAST. ─ 1997 kB 12:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could barely find confirmation this even exists, let alone coverage of it. Even the website linked in the article as being their own station's website is just a page declaring that they exist. I could only find one website, BizAsiaLive.com, that has any coverage of them at all. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Störm (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm not seeing enough content or references to justify draftifying, but if somebody is willing to work on it I would be happy to restore it to their userspace/draftspace. – Joe (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League Task Force HD Remix[edit]

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

Failing to see enough covg.IMO, Too soon Winged Blades^Godric 11:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and crystalball. Can be recreated later if policy is satisfied. James (^talk/_contribs) 13:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - WP:CRYSTALBALL is in effect, but most likely will become an article once finished. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Iwanow[edit]

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

Non-notable SEO and businessman. Sources consist of trivial mentions and listings. A Google search revealed no other suitable sources (just a few more mentions and 1-2 routine announcements in trade magazines). GermanJoe (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find enough to rise to sufficient notability for WP. Boneymau (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yogeshwar Surender Dev Mahadev[edit]

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

Fails GNG.Typical non-reliable/PR/interview sourcing. Winged Blades^Godric 11:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable guru. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 10 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. – Joe (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Ekström (historian of ideas)[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill professor. GScholar citations not that great. Nothing to shout about. Fails WP:NPROF. !dave 11:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There appears to be very little English-language sources to affirm this subject's notability, but there are a number of Swedish news sources [23] where he is mentioned. I would err on the side of caution in advocating the maintaining of the article until better sourcing can be added to the text. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources available. This article was created yesterday.BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He seems to be a full professor at a major university, and Google scholar shows a number of publications which have been cited numerous times by others..I've seen better and worse articles on academics. Would the nominator or others please comment on how they think Google scholar results would or would not indicate that WP:NPROF is satisfied. Edison (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Edison: By the amount of times his work is cited. Should be over 100 in most cases. I guess I must be terribly wrong. NPROF is the least comprehensible guideline for me. I must admit as well that I did not do WP:BEFORE (in the sense of a quick Google search) with the exception of Scholar hits. You have my permission to close this as speedy keep if you wish. !dave 14:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Wyllie[edit]

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

Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet. No substantial edits by others. Textbook G5 speedy deletion but declined to help turn Wikipedia into yet anonther advertising platform. Kepping this spam empowers paid promotion and encouraged the misuse of sockpuppets and erodes Wikipedias falling credibility. Non notable individual. Lacks good independent coverage about him in multiple reliable sources, nothing good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ He seems to be given credit on a number of scientific works and generated some patents. see [24],[25], [26], [27] just a couple off a huge list. He's listed as an author of or mentioned in many, many "sciency" books, and many, many journal articles. I know these aren't nearly so well regarded on wikipedia as say, a paragraph in Sports Illustrated, but they are certainly evidence of some degree of notability. Passes gng. keep. Jacona (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Patents are self published and do not establish notability. See WP:PATENTS Billhpike (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have struck my keep vote...per several comments, primary sources, I believe to have been error Jacona (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - In my opinion, this is a borderline keep as per WP:NSCHOLAR. While not a single one of his article has more than about 100 citations, there are quite a few of them, over a prolonged period of time (from approximately 1980 through 2009), so that I feel he is a presence in his field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics. Beyond this, Wikipedia is not a site for self-promotion, and we need to vigilantly enforce out rules against such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability is marginal at best, and "Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet" tips the scale for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- As a researcher (as claimed in article), fails. No scientific articles. As a business person in Pfizer, fails. As an entrepreneur, fails. Sources are primarily PR. Rhadow (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations to his research are not heavy enough for WP:PROF#C1, even disregarding the other problems discussed above. And the "Viagra Scientist" Financial Times piece looks like the only one that might provide independent reliable coverage of Wyllie (not sure since I can't read it), not enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that citations to his research are not heavy enough for WP:PROF#C1, and everything else is questionable. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 9 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Gilmore[edit]

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

does not meet notability for WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC. Only non-local coverage is a short Time Magazine article about how he sent out a police car to get medication after the 2001 anthrax attack, certainly admirable, but his role in the event was small. Rusf10 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a man of many great contributions, however, apart from WP:GNG, this article looks very much like a LinkedIn page instead of an encyclopaedia to me. Hence, I am in favour of deletion. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 10:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for too long we have let articles on mayors of extremely minor places in New Jersey stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "extremely minor" township has population 88,000, and is the 9th largest municipality in New Jersey. See List of municipalities in New Jersey. The "small" Time Magazine article is behind a paywall, and the "small" role is cited, in the first Ghit on a Google Books search using [Glen Gilmore Hamilton], as an example of leadership during bioterror crisis. Unscintillating (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that there are no editors here who claim that the topic fails GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this snippet for the 2001 Time article, "In the reception area of Mayor Glen Gilmore's office in Hamilton Township, N.J., hangs a colorful poster from Mrs. Mehedin's first-grade class at Wilson Elementary. It shows 13 hand-colored "awards," each thanking Gilmore for providing the community of about 90,000 with parks, snowplows, garbage collection..." Unscintillating (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in all the usual places (article, web, news, books, scholar) satisfy GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and significant RS coverage not found. 88,000 is indeed a "minor township"; this is not a significant municipality. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG mentioned just this week at DRV, "...the level (50,000) where we routinely include mayors". Unscintillating (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is wrong about that being the accepted standard. There used to be a consensus that a population of 50K was an automatic in for a city's mayors, but that's since been deprecated — for a variety of reasons, it is now entirely possible for a city below 50K to have at least some of its mayors considered notable, and for a city well above 50K to have some or all of its mayors deemed not notable. A mayor's notability ultimately depends on the quality and volume of sourcing that can actually be shown to support a reasonably substantive article, not on the size of the city per se. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding statement was recently modified to add claims that WP:N creates content requirements, even though the AfD edit notice here states that, "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements", and the relevant guideline states, WP:N#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Unscintillating (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're interpreting that exactly bass ackward. I didn't say that notability guidelines apply to content within an article; I said (correctly) that the content of the article speaks toward whether notability has been established or not, in response to an inaccurate claim that a certain size of city confers an automatic inclusion freebie on its mayors. Which it doesn't: a mayor's notability is contingent on the depth of sourcing that can be provided, not on the number of people who happen to have him as their mayor. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff: [28], and here is lemma of the insertion, "A mayor's notability ultimately depends on the quality and volume of sourcing that can actually be shown to support a reasonably substantive article..."
From the lede of WP:N,
Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".
That's it, and there is nothing about "sourcing", "support", or "substantiveness". And right there in WP:N#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article are the words "content policies", Wikilinked to Category:Wikipedia content policies. Our content policies, unlike WP:N, are policies. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Worthy of notice" is determined by sourcing. Not by anybody's personal opinions about what we should celebrate: by reliably sourcing that real attention has been paid to the subject in the real world. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources here about him and his political role meet the notability standard. There are plenty of reliable and verifiable sources aboyt Gilmore to be added and any cleanup should be handled via editing. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, which says regarding local officials:
A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.
I cannot find reliable sources with in depth coverage of Gilmore. The article's Trenton Times sources only announce Gilmore's candidacy or describe election outcomes, they are not in depth coverage of Gilmore himself. The PolitickerNJ source is literally just a statement that he was not running for office again. Several sources are just lists of mayors that joined an organization or attended an event (and even if those orgs/events are notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). Being mayor of a town this size by itself is far too WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Without WP:LASTING in depth coverage of him, this local politician fails WP:GNG and we shouldn't have a WP:BLP on him. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are five citations available from Google books with a search on ["Glen Gilmore" hamilton]:

Laura H. Kahn (2009). Who's in Charge?: Leadership During Epidemics, Bioterror, Attacks, and Other Public Health Crises. ABC-CLIO. pp. 65–. ISBN 978-0-275-99485-3. Retrieved 2018-01-07. The Department of Health focused on the state, and Glen Gilmore [mayor of Hamilton], the hospital and town. It had to be coordinated. Because [Glen and I] were on a first-name basis, we acted as one unit, and the community benefited. We couldn't get antibiotics from the CDC. We went to our supplier and asked if they would procure the antibiotics at the hospital's expense.
William E. Schluter (2017-02-24). Soft Corruption: How Unethical Conduct Undermines Good Government and What To Do About It. Rutgers University Press. pp. 25–. ISBN 978-0-8135-8619-9. Retrieved 2018-01-07. ...Glen Gilmore, who was running for reelection as mayor of Hamilton Township. Gilmore won the election. When the Times of Trenton broke the story about this parade of contributions, representatives of <name omitted>'s business interests and the chair of the Mercer Democratic organization—who also served as Gilmore's chief of staff...
Leonard A. Cole; Nancy D. Connell (2012-08-06). Local Planning for Terror and Disaster: From Bioterrorism to Earthquakes. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 53–. ISBN 978-1-118-39775-6. Retrieved 2018-01-07. Hamilton Mayor Glen Gilmore sought help from <name omitted>, the chief administrator of Hamilton's Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital. She ordered 18,000 pills from a pharmaceutical facility in southern New Jersey. The mayor sent a police car to pick them up and deliver them to the hospital, which served as an ad hoc public health facility for the postal workers...
Arnold M. Howitt; Herman B. Leonard (2009-02-11). Managing Crises: Responses to Large-Scale Emergencies. SAGE Publications. pp. 346–. ISBN 978-1-4522-8602-0. Retrieved 2018-01-07. ...to provide the medication and suggested that Hamilton workers see their private physicians for Cipro prescriptions. Outraged by the state's response, Hamilton Mayor Glen Gilmore obtained a supply of the antibiotic, which a local hospital distributed free to postal workers.
Health affairs. 2003. Retrieved 2018-01-07. Example 3 (absent physician leadership): 2001 anthrax attacks in Mercer County, New Jersey. Mercer County includes the state capital and is densely populated, with more than 350,000 people. When anthrax contaminated the Hamilton Township postal facility in Mercer County, no locally appointed physician leader was available to decide whether the 1,000 postal workers should be treated with antibiotics as a preventive measure. The Hamilton Township mayor, Glen Gilmore,...

Unscintillating (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is hard for me to see that these book mentions are more than trivial mentions. In "Managing Crises: Responses to Large-Scale Emergencies," the mention is no more than what is written above. --Enos733 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." As long as you agree that one sentence can be significant coverage, I think the choice between trivial/significant here is that "Outraged by the state's response, Hamilton Mayor Glen Gilmore obtained a supply of the antibiotic" is in-depth significant. This is a sentence that can be used to write encyclopedic material. "Trivial" is something like a person's name in a phone book. Unscintillating (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, context matters and there is no black and white rule when a mention becomes significant. In general, I do not believe a one sentence mention is significant, especially as part of a book that is hundreds of pages long. --Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NPOL(2).Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 8 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 Xbox Underground#Members. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Wheeler[edit]

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

Subject of the article requests deletion (WP:BIODEL). Many, if not most, of the sources are not reliable (Gawker & blogs) particularly with regard to BLP. Fails to establish notability per WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Clearly not notable. Kb.au (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Xbox Underground and redirect. Per WP:CRIME, a person who is only known for their connection with a crime should not have their own article if there is an existing one in which the material can be placed. Given it is of stub quality at best, there's no reason the information on Wheeler couldn't be incorporated into the XU article (in fact, for the most part it already is). As I previously said, Wheeler does not meet the notability requirements regardless. Per WP:BLP1E, the "general rule is to cover the event, not the person" and "when an individual plays a major role in a minor event ... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event". Per WP:CRIME, "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Creating an article on a non-significant individual based on news articles relating to what is effectively a single event would also fail WP:NOTNEWS. Kb.au (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a bit beyond a BLP1E event. Seems subject beyond being notable for the 2013 events, has also fled Australia and is a fugitive, leading to subsequent coverage and proceedings (including the conviction of his mother). e.g. - Alleged hacker Dylan Wheeler's escape was helped by his WA mother, Dylan Wheeler: Accused Australian hacker attempts to crowdfund Ferrari to help 'anxiety', Mum collapses after being jailed for helping son avoid Xbox hacking charges, Suspected hacker Dylan Wheeler offers to return to Australia if guaranteed a ‘fair trial’, Australian teenager accused of being part of group suspected of US Army hack able to flee 'easily', After raid, Australian hacker fears possible arrest, How hackers built, then sold, a pre-release XBox One to the FBI, Australian who boasted of hacking to plead not guilty to charges stemming from raid. To sum up - we have the initial hacking case which was well covered, becoming an international fugitive which is also well covered - that led to the jailing of his mom, attempting to crowdfund a Ferrari and others similar bits, and mentions/coverage in relation to other hacking cases. It is at least a 3E, and with continuing in-depth coverage from 2013 to 2017.Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge - It is poorly source but better sources are available. Plus there have been a handful television reports on him. [29] [30] Somebody, I suspect the subject himself, keeps editing the article to make his bio more flatering, so we need to keep an eye on it. Merge with Xbox Underground per SunChaser. — Niche-gamer 19:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple events, multiple coverage by multiple independent sources over a number of years. Aoziwe (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sourcing, multiple events. BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xbox Underground. Even the additional articles that people have posted above are about the same thing. There's nothing specifically notable about this one person that can't be merged there, and to have an article specifically about him seems excessive and also undue emphasis on alleged crimes. If the subject himself objects to this portrayal and article, and if it's borderline at best, it seems like the logical thing to do is merge. SunChaser (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, good writing.Schracq (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See SPI. Unscintillating (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: BLP Policy allows the deletion on request of a barely notable person after a deletion discussion. What is missing from this discussion is whether this is a barely notable person or not. The article seems relatively brief which suggests he is but that isn't the sense of the discussion I'm getting here. Would be useful to have some commentary on that point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he is barely notable. He has ongoing coverage, is notable for initial hacking scandal, his international fugitive status (which recently landed his mother in jail), and various other bits of "noise" he has attracted coverage for - e.g. Dylan Wheeler: Accused Australian hacker attempts to crowdfund Ferrari to help 'anxiety'. If he were sitting in jail in Australia - it would be easy to go for a delete as a 1-event/BLPCRIME thing. Seeing his well publicized escape and subsequent coverage (including attempting to negotiate a return - Suspected hacker Dylan Wheeler offers to return to Australia if guaranteed a ‘fair trial’) - I don't think this is the case, and I don't think the coverage is going to go away.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - he also has some Czech language coverage - They released me for my history, says a hacker from Ostrava. The company does not comment, August 2016, https://www.lupa.cz/clanky/nejsem-uprchlik-rika-australsky-hacker-obvineny-fbi-zijici-v-ostrave/ I'm not a refugee, says an Australian hacker accused by the FBI and living in Ostrava, Jan 2016].Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by !vote?BabbaQ (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect name only to Xbox_Underground#Members where the subject is already covered in sufficient detail. The subject is not independently notable of the group, and the WP:BIODEL request is a valid one. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -BLP1E. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as way too many BLP issues. When the thing gets resolved, maybe then. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is considerable coverage from multiple reliable sources which suggest independent notability. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented by Icewhiz. I wouldn't consider these actions he's receiving coverage for to be "one event" - there are at least two events, the hacking charges and fleeing Australia. As for the issue of whether or not Wheeler is a "barely notable person", I also would have a hard time considering an international fugitive a "barely notable person", but I definitely don't think this one is. To be barely notable means to avoid attracting attention to yourself, not courting it as long as it's on your terms. Barely notable people don't give interviews to the media about how easily they were able to flee the country. Barely notable people don't give interviews to the media about how they're attempting to negotiate with the country they fled about conditions for their return. Barely notable people don't give interviews to the media about someone else involved in the thing you allegedly did or a different someone else involved in the thing you allegedly did. Barely notable people don't try to get the internet to buy them a car that costs half a million dollars. These are not the kinds of things someone who wants to just be left alone does. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that merely being an "international fugitive" is not itself something that creates notability for a person. There are thousands of them at any given moment and most don't make the papers. While there is some media coverage of Wheeler about, I think that any notability that he has is borderline, and given the request from the subject and the relevant provisions in the BLP policy that this article ought to be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Xbox Underground#Members, where his sole reason for notability already sits. Absent in depth profiles or bios of him, he's just not independently notable. We can revisit if he spawns any more coverage for anything else, and with a redirect the article content will be saved in the history. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xbox Underground#Members, or failing that delete. BLP1E only known for his association with this group, judging by sources; no subnstantial other biographical content. Sandstein 20:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xbox Underground. An obvious BLP1E case. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Parkin (politician)[edit]

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

Mayor of a small city. No significant coverage for NPOL#3 Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for the assertion that there is "no significant coverage"? Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small area mayor lacking sufficient sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the contribution history shows that this !vote appears to have been prepared and posted in 1 minute and 8 seconds after the previous !vote. Note that this !vote has not considered the WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Galobtter and John Pack Lambert. Kb.au (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to City of Burnside. Small city local government mayor with no specific notability so no article in its own right. However, the subject is a multiply re-elected mayor involved in a State Government inquiry into aspects of the council with sources available to the extent a paragraph or two is warranted in City of Burnside describing Parkin's involvement and a little more broadly. Aoziwe (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph or two is much undue, methinks. There's right now only a paragraph on the entire inquiry, and there have been numerous mayors consider how old the city is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - a extra sentence, or at most two, to that paragraph. Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging to History of Burnside? Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not appear to be the subject of national or international coverage and the population of the city is less than 50,000. --Enos733 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG mentions neither national nor international coverage. GNG does not mention population sizes. What was your analysis of the WP:ATD? Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local mayors do not qualify for WP:POLITICIAN absent significant non-local coverage, which is not in evidence here. Frickeg (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors are inherently part of a larger topic in the encyclopedia, so that for mayors, it is safe to say that WP:DEL8 never overcomes WP:ATD. And why include only non-local coverage? Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN--Rusf10 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Burnside. I searched on Google news and Google web using the search term ["David Parkin"]. What I see is a long-running story in which this topic ran for office to combat what he considered to be factional fighting and succeeded. Although part of the story ended with a court case in 2011, the story continues to attract news in the Fall of 2017. Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, move some of that stuff from city of burnside and add about him. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do those supporting deletion think about merging, and to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can add a sentence or two to this paragraph An inquiry was launched in 2009 by then state Local Government Minister Gail Gago into allegations of "harassment, bullying and misconduct" by then members of the City Council. After about $200,000 of expenditure by the council and $1.3 million by the state government, legal action by former councilors prevented the release of the report. A Supreme Court ruling on 27 May 2011, found that the report could be partially released, after material related to parts of the terms of reference deemed inappropriate was redacted. from the main article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Burnside. I fully concur with what Unscintillating wrote.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 06:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Close but not up to to my own personal benchmark for autokeeping elected mayors, that being a city of 50,000 people. Carrite (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to clarify. To City_of_Burnside#Politics Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also recommend a merge to History of Burnside as mentioned before.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care either way. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a directory-like listing on a nn politician. Does not meet WP:NPOL and significant RS coverage not found. The city article would not benefit from inclusion of this content, so I don't see a reason for a merge or redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage fails WP:POLITICIAN. I also don't see any reason to merge unless there was a list of mayors in the City of Burnside#Politics section, which there is not. BTW - he ran unopposed, which for such a small city only lessens the notability of being mayor. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to editor mode to help resolve this: Delete. This meagre content about an obscure local political dispute is not worth merging. Nobody argues that notability for keeping exists. Sandstein 20:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify more I don't really care either way since it's just two sentences. If someone creates a list of mayors it should probably be targeted there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:36, 10 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 speedy delete by Bbb23: G5- Created by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Stanley[edit]

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

Fail to see how she passes GNG.Promo-stuff. Winged Blades^Godric 10:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:20, 2 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 already deleted. by admin Elahrairah with rationale "Mass deletion of pages added by MuhamadAzri" Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nurzaidi Bunari[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL. NZFC^(talk) 11:18, 2 January 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) 11:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:14, 3 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 nomination withdrawn.. (non-admin closure) Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert C. Kodilinye[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Nigerian scientist. I don't think that 1 published article makes him notable. Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Yet another JNN deletion spree. It was just WP:SNOW-closed 7 days ago and you're here again mistaking article content as the basis of notability. He passes two solid WP:ACADEMIC notability criteria by having been vice chancellor of renown public university (in fact, one of the top in Africa). And equally passes another by being foundation Fellow of Nigerian Academy of Science. I will advise you to speedy withdraw this, it is not going anywhere. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: I don't know how to withdraw. Used TW for nomination. Sorry for the confusion. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbarmadillo: OK, just leave it now, somebody will read this and close it. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:37, 2 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas Communications[edit]

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

No covg. in RS.Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 09:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. Or keep/merge with parent. Whatever about coverage under the title 'Veritas Communications' (which seems to be the official rather than commonname), the subject company, 'Veritas Publications', would seem to be subject to coverage under its current COMMONNAME title (and indeed its past title). It is otherwise relatively well-known (under either title) in Ireland. For myself it seems that perhaps the creator should have considered using the common rather than the official name of this entity. Which may better aid in GNG/NCORP verification.. Guliolopez (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...that brings up some more GHits:) But, I am still not seeing enough indep covg. in RS for an outright keep !vote.A merge could be definitely done with ICBC.Winged Blades^Godric 19:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, KEEP I added a little WP:SIGCOV form WP:RS. Notability of this publisher is readily established in new archive searches that bring up articles about, review of notable books that Veritas has brought out. Editors should beware PRESENTISM; major news articles form the 70s 80s and 90s are unlikely to come up in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously keep -- It looks like the publishing house of the Catholic Church in Ireland, where Catholicism is the dominant religion. If so, it should certainly be notable. If the current article name reflects the company name, we should retain it, but Veritas Publications might be allowed as a redirect to it, if that is a commoner name. It is currently a redirect to Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 7 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giada del Drago[edit]

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

I don't see see how she passes WP:NARTIST or WP:NACTOR.Trivial mentions/non-mentions in RS.Non-significant roles in films. Winged Blades^Godric 09:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 2 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 speedy delete. Deleted by DGG as A7, G11. (non-admin closure) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cavendish Corporate Finance[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Practically every source Google News dredges up is a quotable from one of their experts or a name-drop utterly lacking in detail; there's practically nil on the company itself as far as I can find. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promotional 'cruft on a nn company. Created by Special:Contributions/Onthepedestal with one total edit; likely COI / sock. I requested a speedy deletion; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somendra Solanki[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR.Too soon.Nothing but trivial name mentions in reliable sources. Winged Blades^Godric 09:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not yet met notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON to be called a seasoned actor. MT Train^Discuss 15:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olusola Areogun[edit]

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

A self-published Christian pastor. The only substantive sources turn out to be churnalism - press releases reprinted as content. The history of the article shows it to be promotional in intent, and Google does not provide any obvious evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Draft:Olusola Areogun previously rejected multiple times at AfC and then copied into mainspace by one of the two accounts which had been tending the draft. AllyD (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has been pruned of most of its POV content which was more appropriate to a church newsletter. What is left, aside from claims which are not and cannot be referenced, is mundane: the references verify a person going about his trade, but I agree with the AfC reviewers in 2016-17 and see nothing which demonstrates WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- My initial reaction to the article was that a general overseer is an office similar in nature to a bishop, whom we would certainly keep. On second reading I suspect that he is merely senior minister of a church, in which case he is probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Robillard-Cole[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Typical promo-PR-sources.Fails GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 08:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, or at least it is not supposed to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lift For The 22[edit]

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

Spam Promo.Typical PR sources.Fails GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 08:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went through all the sources which are mainly local/regional news blogs - most of which repeat each other in their own words, and seem to be operated by the same syndicate. Nothing convinced me that this is notable. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 2 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 keep. Article subject passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG due to sources present. (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahadevappa Rampure Medical College[edit]

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

I am usually lenient with educational institutions. But this one is a straight exception. No references/ notability, and is a catalog of a private teaching education in current form. Devopam (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A medical college that operates two teaching hospitals should be a unanimous keep. A quick search indicates there are sufficient WP:RS for WP:V and WP:N, later (when I have time) I will come back and add them to the article if nobody else does. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:GNG. Unlike the nominator, I am not usually lenient with educational institutions, but this one seems to have sufficient coverage including in major newspapers, as one would expect of a medical school. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the article is cleanuped and improved..Sangappadyamani (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , thanks to the revamped article in current shape now. Thanks to effort by @Sangappadyamani:. Devopam (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of reliable sources present which help the subject pass GNG. Pratyush (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheSabre[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS for this fan-site. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The OR / notability deletion rationale remains uncontested. Sandstein 12:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internet of People[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete for copyvio Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the aforementioned hackernoon piece (https://hackernoon.com/introducing-the-graphchain-2d20513bf713) has added a copyleft notice ("Work published under Creative Commons copyleft license. You are free to use this content at will.") supporting my claim that there is no copyright infringement.

Arcojuana (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be correct, so if that's the only issue, that could be solved with an attribution notice in the article. The other copyvio positives (Earwig) all seem to draw from that piece as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel this is largely a publication of original research, that hasn't attained independent notability as of yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 14:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 2 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Bardini[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. Claims in the article are completely unreferenced; the only reference list provided for this BLP is a short list of the individual's academic articles. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple books that are reasonably widely held, one is published with Stanford University Press, the other by University of Minnesota Press:

Bootstrapping : Douglas Engelbart, coevolution, and the origins of personal computing by Thierry Bardini: held by 545 WorldCat member libraries worldwide
Junkware by Thierry Bardini: held by 199 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Sample reviews:

Bootstapping From: Technology and Culture, Volume 43, Number 1, January 2002, pp. 200-201 | 10.1353/tech.2002.0005
Bootstapping From IEEE Computer Society
Junkware From Design and Culture, The Journal of the Design Studies Forum, Volume 4, 2012 - Issue 3

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per K.e.coffman. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Both the published reviews (I added four, on two of his books, to the article) and the citation record (three pubs with over 100 cites each on Google scholar) make a plausible but weak case for notability, through WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Talsania[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP, WP:GNG. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 15:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Shikha Talsania is a budding film actress, daughter of a well established actor. The details in the article have been supported by sources and the sources are not of low-quality. I would request that the page should stay. There are other pages also where, there is a mention of this actress.

Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 18:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shikha Talsania qualifies to keep, this biography belongs to her not to the family and required more independent sources. @Vikram maingi , can keep after rewriting if qualifies WP:BIO. Genome$100 (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ENT as the roles are small and non-significant. Hagennos (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Koleva(Singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Claims of awards not supported by reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have linked the bg-Wikipedia as an inspiration. She is quite noteable in Bulgaria Arved (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 18:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS sufficient for BLPs Agricola44 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable in Bulgaria. BG Music Awards is one of the few significant award events in our country. I added sources proving her nominations. Quickfingers (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the guideline for BLPs. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur with opinion of nominator (@ChatMe!). Quis separabit? 20:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet the relevant notability guidelines and created by a banned sock farm; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hamzaramzan123. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has Koleva ever charted on a national chart? I am not sure what the official chart of Bulgaria is. If so, she likely passes WP:MUSICBIO#2. Search results show many sources in languages I cannot read which makes evaluating GNG difficult. I added two details but would like to know if she has charted. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respecification[edit]

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

Non notable term, dictionary definition. No reliable sources reportage in the article neither in search. Ammarpad (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. This might merit a brief mention in MMORPG but there is no encyclopaedic topic here for a separate article. In addition to the nominator's concerns it also falls foul of WP:NOTDIC. The links above suggest that this is not even the primary usage of the term and Wiktionary does not mention it. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Redirect as suggested by Coin945 below. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change back to delete if this isn't the correct form of the term. Sorry for flip-flopping. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT and failing WP:GNG. Non-notable gaming term, not covered in detail by reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was just about to AFD this myself haha. Cannot find any sources about this. Actually come to think of it, it might have more of a home being Redirected to Glossary of video gaming terms.--Coin945 (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilxFish (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of video gaming terms. The term normally used is "respec(ing)", so "respecification" is reaching a bit, but as such it is very common (although like most gaming slang not exactly well covered in "reliable" sources). About the same level as "frag", which has been around for 25 years and duly gets a mention in another article, but not one to itself. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Delete, point existing redirect Respec to Glossary of video gaming terms - following Hevesli. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to Wiktionary, "respec" is short for "respecialize", making this page patent nonsense._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, slow down there mate. Just because it's not in Wiktionary does not mean it's 'patent nonsense'. A simple search [31] demonstrates that the term is applied to just about every modern CRPG. It may not be worthy of an article, but denying a link to an existing definition in an article seems remarkably purblind. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It'd be good to come to a consensus about straight deletion or redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Glossary of video gaming terms. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to delete, per Hevesli. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 08:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Glossary of video gaming terms already has the term Respecing which is respecIALIZation not respecIFICation. Respecification is not used as a video gaming term therefore merge makes no sense.Hevesli (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...that's actually true - it's originally based on specialization, not specification. Duh. - Okay, let's kill this one and point the existing redirect respec to the glossary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - i.e. non-notable term. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Team Handball Conference[edit]

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

Search for sources to satisfy GNG or ORG found nothing. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a press release from the University of Alabama, but that's it. On that press release, there was a link to the team's page. The link was broken. I think that says it all. South Nashua (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' It was the first Handball League in the USA and also important for the US Handball in gereral. @TeamHandball: wrote at my talk page that he's searching infos and update the article. I know ther aren't many online sources because the leasgue was established at the beginning of the internet. But I found some more sources: Emory University, Presbyterian College Magazine, Summer/Fall, 1997, Presbyterian College Magazine, Winter 1997-98 & Presbyterian College Magazine, Winter 2000--Malo95 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- College PR magazines are not independent reliable sources within the meaning of GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. --Malo95 (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the college references are not independent but not actually unreliable Atlantic306 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no secondary coverage from independent and reliable sources, fails basic test WP:GNG. Being old or oldest is not notability or valid point in AfD WP:VERYOLD Ammarpad (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary coverage from independent sources. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. Fancruft and trivia; such content belongs on the org's website, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" does not explain how an "affiliate body" confers notability. Sandstein 12:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untamed Sports TV[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete for spam and not notable; but seems to be informative about how USA television is run. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The network is basically below relevant on both American broadcast and pay TV at this point at time (as you can see from the 'dumped it' list being much larger than the 'airing it' list, along with it being on in a grand total of three markets over-the-air), but it still had enough of an affiliate body once upon a time to pass WP:N. But the past affiliate list is definitely not needed, and a few programs it airs can be summarized because it's basically the same 'wait for the three second trigger pull/reel-in and twelve sponsors' brokered format all outdoor shows have. Nate • (chatter) 08:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless more RS can be provided, I don't think that Untamed Sports TV, which is largely unheard of in the athletic world, merits an article on Wikipedia. As of now, I'm not seeing other publications discussing the subject of the article. Carajou (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a television network about outdoors subjects, not athletics. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent and reliable sources to suggest notability. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:41, 2 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 Food Network Star (season 8). Sandstein 12:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yvan Lemoine[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill chef. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what's wrong with a redirect to Food Network Star (season 8)? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with voting REDIRECT, but for me to have changed it to a redirect without an AfD would have been tantamount to a unilateral deletion without discussion. Edwardx (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Erpert.--Jamez42 (talk) 05:16, 4 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 no consensus. Seems to be agreement to oppose this as a multi-nom and that they should instead be AfD'ed individually (perhaps after an RfC clarifying how to evalute notability of this kind of article); relisting has shown no willingness from other people to cast an actual opinion on the nominated articles so I doubt leaving this multi-nom open as it is will lead to anything constructive. (Since the opinions weren't "in favor of keeping the articles" but more "against how the multi-nom was presented", I think no consensus" with NPASR (individually) is the best way to reflect that.) (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amagasaki mayoral election, 2002[edit]

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

Individual municipal elections for small to mid-size cities and towns are not inherently notable, unless the coverage for them goes beyond WP:ROUTINE local coverage (see the test case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjo mayoral election, 2006).

I am also bundling the following articles from Category:Mayoral elections in Japan (list hatted for length). I excluded any election for a city with a population over 1 million, since I feel those have a better claim to individual notability and thus might be controversial in a bundled nom. I am happy to strike any other individual article that anyone feels has a strong claim to individual notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled nominations
Chuo mayoral election, 2007 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Fujimi mayoral election, 2008 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Fukagawa mayoral by-election, 2007 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Fukagawa mayoral election, 2006 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Higashiōsaka mayoral election, 2006 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Hino mayoral election, 2005 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Kameoka mayoral election, 2007 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Kiso mayoral election, 2005 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Kumamoto mayoral election, 2006 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Meguro mayoral election, 2008 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Minamimaki mayoral election, 2007 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Minato mayoral election, 2008 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Miyota mayoral election, 2007 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Niigata mayoral election, 2006 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Nishihara mayoral election, 2008 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Rikuzentakata mayoral election, 2007 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Shibuya mayoral election, 2003 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Shinagawa mayoral election, 2006 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Shinjuku mayoral election, 2006 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Warabi mayoral election, 2007 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Yuzawa mayoral election, 2005 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Zushi mayoral election, 2006 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)

Bundled nominations

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination says that the names of the articles being considered for deletion are being "hatted for length", but another viewpoint is that hatting the names increases the psychological distant between !voters and the articles being deleted. Below are the normal AfD templates for each of the bundled articles. Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the duplicate links you added. If you disagree with the hatting, un-hat, although I will say that I don't believe it is unusual or out-of-policy for lengthy bundled noms to be hatted to reduce clutter. There is no reason to dump the exact same list of links into the AfD, nearly doubling its size. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, the nominator didn't remove "duplicate links". Second, the nom has identified no Wikilinks for the nom's beliefs regarding hatting. Third, saying there is "no reason to dump the exact same list of links" is problematic; including (1) for the previously stated fact that this didn't happen; (2) the reason that the nom could have looked at what was being removed instead of assuming what was being removed; (3) the nom could have noticed that in the phrase "normal AfD templates for each of the bundled articles", the word "templates" is plural; (4) the nom could have checked what constitutes "normal AfD templates" by looking at the nomination; and (5) the comment plays IDHT to the comment that "hatting the names increases the psychological distant between !voters and the articles being deleted." Regarding the nom's concern about the size of this AfD, we have virtually unlimited capacity on our servers, see WP:NOTPAPER.
    Hiding the names of the bundled articles doesn't serve the purpose of due process for these contributions. Our policy is to WP:PRESERVE the contributions of our contributors.
    If the nom thinks that the hatted list is a duplicate, I suggest that the nom is free to remove it. Unscintillating (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Had the nominator checked what was being removed, the nominator would have discovered that the preparation for this nomination missed two previous AfD nominations. It was the nom's responsibility to follow WP:BEFORE, including WP:BEFORE D1 searches and reports on Google web, Google news, Google newspapers, and Google books, for each of these 23 topics; as well as to explain why there was a need to renominate articles that previously went through AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The two articles were kept in 2009. Standards have clearly changed significantly in the intervening years, given that my test case nomination was closed as delete last week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fujimi mayoral election, 2008

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Minato mayoral election, 2008

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural oppose I agree that some of the very small ones are unlikely to be notable, but there are some in here where well over 100,000 votes were cast (e.g. Niigata mayoral election, 2006 and Kumamoto mayoral election, 2006) so I don't think it's been bundled appropriately. District council elections in the UK have been repeatedly determined to be notable at AfD and can be for very small jurisdictions (e.g. the Shetland Islands). I think a discussion, possibly an RfC, should be held at somewhere like WP:E&R or WP:JAPAN to determine what level of local government should be a cut-off point for election articles (perhaps cities?). Some of the nominated articles (e.g. Niigata and Kumamoto) are designated cities which have many of the powers of a prefecture, which is the second tier of government in Japan. Number 5 7 21:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep All - Split them up. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting also that User:Genome$100 who has made a comment has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Students for the Advancement of Global Entrepreneurship[edit]

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

Spam article. All substantive edits are by two accounts whose usernames clearly identify them as associated with the group. After pruning a veritable link farm including predatory journals, it turns out that the only two actual sources cited are also both associated with the group. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic is interesting to students and budding entrepreneurs. Add few more sources to debate to keep. Genome$100 (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for a nn group; does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. Basically, org spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable group attempting to legitimize themselves on Wikipedia. Fails NORG and GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above .500 Inc.[edit]

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

No real sources, all only have a passing mention, so unless we get some real coverage on the subject, it should get the axe... TJH2018 talk 18:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news, NFL website, Miami Dolphins website is not real coverage or real sources?? User talk:bassmfs —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing any of the links that are used as references. The one for the Miami Dolphins works fine, but many of the other ones that could be used to corroborate this organization's notability return 404s or other errors. Perhaps the article creator could find the right links to these references?? :> Icze4r (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm sure some of them are old now, or expired, I'm sure I can find some links, which ones aren't working anymore?

Here's a few updated one...

Only Links, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, are not working, but here are 5 other new links from more recent events that I will replace them with.

Bassmfs (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I updated all the links and made some changes. Bassmfs (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The independent coverage appears to be about the events run by this group, not the group itself (and many are press releases in some form). None of the events are individually notable. It's very clear that no SNG is met; I don't see any specific source that meets the GNG as being about the group itself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for a nn group; does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. Basically, org spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Particularly per OTR500. The coverage is either trivial or unreliable, and we can't support a BLP on that level of shaky sourcing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Hasnain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An unremarkable pageant contestant and winner of nn Mrs. Pakistan World; significant RS coverage for pageant career not found. There's minor notability due to an alleged scam the subject participated in link, but this does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. There have been attempts to add this to the article. For lack of notability and due to BLP concerns, I believe that the article is best deleted.

First AfD closed as "Keep", based in part on the rationale that the pageant is notable. The article on the pageant has since been deleted, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She had a well-sourced article here in 2011 (created in 2008) - version as of 2011 - prior to the scam scandal, and she was covered for her competition in various followup pageants. The alleged scam does not detract from her prior notability.Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the standalone Mrs Pakistan World page has been deleted, it is mentioned in the main Miss Pakistan World article and so remains notable. She also participated in Mrs Globe (definitely a notable pageant) in which she won several prizes. Well-sourced article. Easily passes WP:GNG. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment -- the extend of coverage is the parent pageant is as follows (Miss_Pakistan_World#Expansion):

"In 2007 Mrs. Pakistan World,^[1] for married women, was created as a spin-off. Both the Miss Pakistan World and the Mrs. Pakistan World pageant were created on the basis of issues faced by women in Pakistan.The pageant is running successfully since 2007."

References

^ http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/pakistan-gets-mrs-pakistan-world-221800650.html

The link is dead, but I'd venture a guess that it was the org's own press release. This does not seem like a notable pageant; "Mrs"-named pageants are generally the lowest tier in the pageant world. Miss_Pakistan_World is tagged for notability itself. I don't believe that this meets WP:ANYBIO and the pageantry coverage is routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and what we look for here is WP:What Wikipedia is not, examining spam each on different occasion isn't helping us but instead netting the blatant ones is what makes a difference. Both votes here aren't proposing anything differently than that it must be notable and that's not what makes a difference in any other AfD where a similar comment could be made. Our priority here is that we're not a discriminate collection of information or other trivia, and that's WP:Indiscriminate policy. SwisterTwister talk 17:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, we are citing policy. As long as the subject meets WP:GNG, the article is adequately sourced and not a WP:BLP violation there is no reason to delete it. The subject is notable (just) beyond the Mrs Pakistan World involvement. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- what's being argued is that there's no depth of coverage (WP:SIGCOV) to satisfy GNG. Besides, what else is the subject notable for? That she was "awarded $15,000 in a "Smile Competition" in Mrs. Globe 2008"? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plenty of coverage of her legal problems in multiple RS. I'd say being a fugitive from justice is an indication of notability. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've addressed this point in the nomination: "Former Mrs Pakistan Used her Striking Appearance to Scam California Ramilies" link, but this does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. There have been attempts to add such material into the article, and there were rightfully removed, per BLP. So Plenty of coverage of her legal problems in multiple RS does not help this specific article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article seems to fail any policy based criteria for inclusion per WP:NOT or pass the notability criteria for a stand alone article mentioned in WP:N including WP:GNG. This article doesn't come close to passing WP:NOT on several levels, most notably WP:NOTEVERYTHING (aka: Encyclopedic content) and WP:IINFO. Both WP:N and WP:GNG require an article to pass WP:NOT as having coverage alone is not enough to merit an article. Also both require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the sources in the article meet this requirement. Current sources:

Sources 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 are from mrspakistan.com which is hardly independent.

Sources 8, 9 reference that the subject was charged with a crime. I am unaware of any policy that suggests that small time, local, "alleged" scammers qualify for a stand alone article and the guidelines under WP:CRIME are not met.

A review of the previous sources in the article was of no help in establishing notability, mostly PR, blogs, or other non-independent sources. CBS527^Talk 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article is within WP:GNG. Sources are good but needs formatting. The article overall needs c/e but AfD is not a clean-up service. Several of the Delete !votes above are mistaken, the references are mostly indepth and third party, both national, international and pageant related sources independent from each other are available.BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly open to amend my !vote if such sources exist. I have been unable to find any in the article or G-searches that meet the requirements for notability. "Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". Where are these in depth and third party references? It would be helpful if you would point us to a couple that are verifiable and meet the requirements to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 11:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weak sources do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are multiple severe issues with this BLP. The subject is not even close to satisfying any guidelines of notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people) or the BLP policy. Nine references and 7 are primary sources to Miss Pakistan World (not attributed in the referencing), one primary court document that redirected me to a County of Santa Clara search site, and one reliable source. I am sure it did not go unnoticed this is a BLP and the standards are to be far higher. Primary sources do not count towards notability. The subject is reportedly a "former" Mrs Pakistan World 2008 winner, and she reportedly (I can't tell because there is no actual reliable souce) was arrested. This is another issue of "throwing dirt" without evidence and possibly justification for BLP violation article blanking. The use of primary sources has led to Puffery words such as "most beautiful Mrs. Pakistan World", "Expressions of doubt" (prosecutors alleged), and other weasel words. Even if there were more reliable sources we are talking about a "one time wonder" that is best covered under a parent article. However, some major confusion is that on a horribly referenced and tagged article titled Miss Pakistan World (is this "not" the same pageant?) I didn't see her name in 2008. There is listed a "Natasha Paracha" and a Representatives to Miss Earth 2008 "Nosheen Idrees". This article, and any BLP's like this (a drive to "just" make BLP articles regardless of policies and guidelines) have no place in this encyclopedia. Otr500 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Otr500 summed up nicely. Störm (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Participating in the Mrs. Globe pageant might not be enough to establish notability here. And the same might be true for being the subject of criminal charges. But there's something unique about the combination of the two that makes for an interesting story. I imagine that the "delete" votes will say that the story might be of some interest, but not of encyclopedic interest. And perhaps they're right; but perhaps they're not. I myself see it as a borderline case -- so much so that I'm not able to weigh in with an opinion one way or the other. But I'm posting here anyway just to address a few inaccuracies that have been put forward by the "delete" votes.

1. The court site that reports the filing of criminal charges is not a primary source. The court did not make the allegations of criminal behavior -- the county's district attorney did. And the court site is a reliable third-party source for the fact that those charges were made. But more to the point, once the charges had been filed, there was press coverage of them, including reliable reporting of the fact that the subject left the jurisdiction of the court. There are no BLP violations here.

2. Although there is common ownership of the Miss Pakistan World and Mrs. Pakistan World pageants, they are indeed separate pageants. There is no reason to expect that the subject's name would appear in a list of the "Miss" winners and no negative inference should be drawn from the fact that it does not appear there.

3. The administrator who closed the first nomination did not cite notability of the pageant as a reason for "keeping" the article. The only cited reason was the nominator's own statement that the article should be kept, so long as discussion of the criminal charges was removed.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to echo NY Actuary in that the crime and beauty pageant nexus makes this notable. The media agrees. International and US coverage includes: Mercury News [[32]], Daily Mail [[33]], The Express Tribune (Pakistan) [[34]], NY Daily News [[35]], ABC News [[36]], LA Times [37], DNA India [[38]], Business Insider [39], and on and on. There are several articles about her and that she won the pageant, pre-crime. Passes WP:GNG.
Delete. The beauty pageant coverage is superficial or not independent, and the scam coverage is WP:BLP1E. Sandstein 20:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
’’’delete’’’ blp1e when the other event is non-notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 10 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 No consensus (NPASR). (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 11:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maddison Jaizani[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medium Keep – She's had notable roles in two TV series, not yet the most prolific performer but I don't have a problem with the article's existence.— TAnthony^Talk 17:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:49, 2 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 merge to Morgan Evans (singer). Sandstein 12:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solver (band)[edit]

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

The article fails any sort of notability test per WP:Music. The only reason the article seems to exist is due to Morgan Evans having a Wikipedia page - 'Solver' definitely does not need a page of their own. Wannabemodel (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – even the article only claims local notability. Totally fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. PriceDL (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anything remotely sufficient for WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is two good sources for GNG already in the article. There's a lot more in The Newcastle Herald. Even if you thinks that's not enough for a stand alone article then this should be merged to Morgan Evans (singer). Deletion of verified content is not necessary. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough to pass GNG; or Merge to Morgan Evans per duffbeerforme.–shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Morgan Evans (singer). I really don't think there's anywhere near enough for a separate article, but if we don't keep it, a merge of anything useful to the article on the singer would obviously be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 10:11, 9 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 Wrong forum.. AfD is for deletion nominations, not for merger proposals. Please make such proposals on the article talk page. There is in any case no consensus for a merger here. Sandstein 12:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation coefficient[edit]

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

As Talk:Correlation coefficient, a weird mix of disambiguation and article page, maybe better to be merged with Correlation and dependence −ebrahim^talk 06:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is needed and has several incoming links from ordinary articles. Put ((disambig)) at its end. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anthony Appleyard: This would at most be an ((SIA)), not a ((disambig)), as these are kinds of the same thing, not ambiguous concepts. bd2412 T 13:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a widely used term in statistics. It is true that the article does need some clean-up, but this would be better discussed on the article's talk page than here. Vorbee (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and section-redirect to Correlation and dependence. This is a WP:DABCONCEPT for which the conversion to a broad concept article was initiated, but expert attention is needed to carry it through to a proper article. Since this is a subtopic of Correlation and dependence, and is mentioned in that article, I see no reason that this content should not be merged there until it is further developed. bd2412 T 13:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and section-redirect to Correlation and dependence. Correlation is a better lede. Correlation and dependence is a better article. I am strongly in favor of fixing, merging, or deleting these ten-year-old stubs in statistics and finance. Rhadow (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned it is a widely used term and even if the article is in a bad state currently that suggests that it should not be merged or deleted but rather due attention paid to it in order to bring it up to standard. EvilxFish (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I counted 11 mainspace articles linking in here. Article could be clearer, but is cited, and almost serves as a DAB page for the more specialised correlations that are linked to. Nick Moyes (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~This is necessary disambig. page.~~ There is no way this page should be deleted. Perhaps one could argue that we need two pages, Correlation and dependence (more general subject) and Correlation coefficient. Or maybe they should be merged into one page, Correlation coefficient. But it should not be deleted or made a "redirect". My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Correlation and dependence – which should really be named Correlation (statistics) – to form a section there, and redirect there. The fact that articles link to here is in my opinion irrelevant, especially if Correlation coefficient simply redirects to the new section Correlation (statistics)#Correlation coefficient. --Lambiam 14:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having this as a current brief disambig. page is a lot more helpful for a reader who is not an expert or just a student. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a matter of properly presenting the material. Precisely because Correlation coefficient is now a stand-alone article, it cannot come directly to the point but needs to mumble in the lead what "correlation" means. (I say "mumble" because the definition is not particularly enlightening to a novice in the area.) A subsection Correlation (statistics)#Correlation coefficient could, after a very brief opening paragraph (like "A correlation coefficient is a numerical measure of some type of correlation. Each type has its own definition, range of usability and characteristics; they have in common that they assume values in the range from −1 to +1, where +1 indicates the strongest possible agreement and −1 the strongest possible disagreement.") continue directly with a paragraph like: "The best known and most commonly used type of correlation is the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. When the term 'correlation coefficient' is used without further qualification, it usually refers to the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient is also known as r, R, or Pearson's r. It is a measure ...". This organization and presentation will probably serve the non-expert better. --Lambiam 08:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your argument I think we should keep and improve current page (maybe to remove or clarify the "mumble"). The matter may need more discussion. The best course of action here will be to keep this page with edit history, and then discuss merging or whatever other changes on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is this a nomination for merger? Don't we have a template (template:mergeto) for that? Also, a disambiguation page which explains clearly the different possible destinations is a good thing! Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. If there are different correlation coefficients, this can be most conveniently handled by having a brief disambig. page. Reading a highly detailed Correlation and dependence page is a lot less convenient for someone quickly looking for something. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if there are "different correlation coefficients", this would be a topic for a WP:SIA or WP:BROADCONCEPT article; disambiguation pages are for unrelated concepts, like seal (the animal), seal (the mechanical joinder), and Seal (the musician). bd2412 T 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I am looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, and it tells: "Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term". "...referenced by the same search term" - yes, that is what I thought. My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Different" topics, though - which is why, for example, "Coca Cola" is not a disambiguation page listing the different kinds of the drink. See, specifically, Wikipedia:Broad-concept article#Physics and mathematics. bd2412 T 21:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. But it is obvious that page Correlation coefficient must exist, either as a standalone "general subject" page or as a disambig. page. There is no way it should be deleted. Perhaps one could argue that we need two pages, Correlation and dependence (more general subject) and Correlation coefficient. Or maybe they should be merged into one page, Correlation coefficient. But it should not be deleted or made a "redirect". My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waheed Mandoo Hammo[edit]

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

I do not see why this person is notable, definitely not without any meaningful text in the article and without independent sources. Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the real question is whether Ezidikhan (Ezidkhan) is a state with limited recognition, or if this is just an advocacy group with the appearance of a government. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is an advocacy group.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
World Council of Churches press release: [40]. Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I think this is a legitimate Yazidi Prime Minister, with Google showing meetings with both the Iraqi prime minister and the World Council of Churches, we are not a news agency. We aren't in a hurry, so we can wait a bit to see more news reports. Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "Keep" arguments were not entirely policy-based and did not compensate for lack of independent, reliable sources on the subject. Killiondude (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project Censored[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page should be deleted for the simple reason that 'Project Censored' is not notable. This is shown by the lack of RS coverage. The sources are the following: (1-3) Publications by Project Censored, (4) An Alternet op-ed from 2000, (5) A Mother Jones op-ed from 2000, (6-10) Sources that no one has heard about, all from 2006-2007. Note that to what extent these sources do cover Project Censored, it's to note how fringe and meaningless the organization is (e.g. the Alternet and MoJo op-eds). The most recent secondary source is from 2007 (!). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all reasons to improve the article, not delete it. More to the point, this article has been here since March, 2003. It was notable then, and notability is not temporary. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But how can the article be improved if there is zero substantive RS coverage? For example, I've searched for any and all mentions of "Project Censored" on the Washington Post, NY Times and CNN, and there have only been off-hand mentions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need to be changed only if the public information about the topic changes. If information is not changing, then the article does not need to be updated. Project Censored was a much bigger deal 10 years ago than it is now, but again, notability is not temporary. If you think this policy is wrong, take it up with the Editorial Board. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any RS that substantiate that it was ever a big deal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TechBear:, your understanding of notability is backwards. You must first establish WP:SUSTAINED notability in order to demonstrate the topic is notable in the first place. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, evidence of whether an article topic was ever notable may be reassessed at any time, even years later. The argument being put forward is that this topic is not notable, and never was, based on the lack of past or present WP:RELIABLESOURCES that can be found on the topic. I'm inclined to agree (my !vote is recorded below). Shelbystripes (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. Basically, if something is notable only in the specific context of another event or topic, it should remain in that context and not be given its own article. How would this apply to this article? What is the one unique context without which Project Censored has no significance? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TechBear: Again, you seem to be getting your understanding of notability backwards. You must explain in what context Project Censored has encyclopedic notability in the first place. Also, the language you quoted is really about whether an article should be framed as about a person rather than an event; this organization is neither a person nor an event. For this organization to warrant an article, you must show that encyclopedic notability exists for this organization. That means showing sufficient reliable sources that discuss the organization over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. Where is that? I haven't seen it. Where is the evidence of encyclopedic notability? Shelbystripes (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There isn't really much evidence this "project" ever had notability. The few sources in the article critically describe it as a fringe independent media project. The entire article body basically just describes repeated condemnation and dismissal of Project Censored as any kind of valid initiative. Scattered dismissals of a project's relevance or validity do not indicate the project's lasting notability. I can find nothing in my own independent searching to indicate encyclopedic notability either. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How many books were published by Project Censored? see here for a start: www.worldcat.org/search= "project censored" How many interviews on the radio, TV and the internet? How many millions of Americans have read these books or seen/ listened to these interviews about censored news? How many people read the original articles before their re-publication in Project Censored? Future headline?: "Wikipedia censored Project Censored"- I don't think so. A ri gi bod (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the near-complete absence of RS coverage, the answer to most of your questions appears to be "not many". If there is any substantive RS coverage, please demonstrate it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Project Censored is part of the nonprofit Media Freedom Foundation, a 501(c)(3) educational organization, that has been around for over 40 years. It is the oldest and longest contiguously existing media watchdog in the US. In addition to winning numerous awards (including more in just the past few years), the Project is regularly featured on alternative media outlets, and has been featured at RT, Al Jazeera, among others, along with scores of local newspapers and alternative weeklies every year for their annual release. The Project has a weekly radio show that is broadcast nationwide on over 40 stations (started in 2010, originating at the historic Pacifica KPFA studios in Berkeley, CA), has trained thousands students in critical media literacy, which is part of their mission statement, and runs a successful campus affiliate program that brings media literacy to over 20 colleges and universities in the US. Two years ago the Project helped found the Global Critical Media Literacy Project, holds and participates in annual academic conferences, and continues to publish a book a year with the notable Seven Stories Press in NY. The Project continues to have a large following as evidenced in their social media presence, and their directors speak across the us on public lecture circuits. One can say they continue to be very notable.CapatainArmstron (talk) 2:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with the organization in some way? I ask because this is your first edit on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources that address the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NORG. Does not meet WP:NFRINGE either. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory Standard[edit]

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

Short-lived employment website with no coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article involving a couple of WP:SPA accounts, a rejected AfC and an overwritten CSD A7, with the proposition text from 2012 subsequently edited into past tense after the site became defunct by 2014. My searches find no evidence that it attained notability: fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT. "Ceased trading in 2014" Pretentious much? Ravenswing 17:30, 2 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 speedy delete under criteria G11 (promotional) and G12 (copyright infringement). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Phycological Society International[edit]

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

Does not adequately provide references to meet WP:GNG as the only 2 references, are primary references from their site. A quick google search does not show any news articles or any sites mentioning them.

Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Business[edit]

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

Very difficult to find the coverage due to name. Very likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom but in the absense of clear references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internwise[edit]

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

Nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, no indications of notability, fails WP:NCORP, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 2 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myjobmatcher[edit]

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

Nothing more than namechecking. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berrett-Koehler Publishers[edit]

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

The only cited source for this is an archived copy of a recycled press release. Google is no more helpful. There are several versions of the company's own self-provided profile, but I could not find anything about the firm. It appears to be small, and not to meet WP:CORP. Obviously the creator is a WP:SPA, that pretty much goes without saying. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ammarpad (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. There are no indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability and puffed up prose, as in: envisioned a different kind of publisher -- what does this even mean? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree, not notable, promo stub; fails WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. Highbeam returns various publication notices, which confirms the subject as a company going about its business, but I do not see anything which can establish WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Schacher[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this person. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sourcing, way below the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notabe as either a "television, radio, and Internet host" or "producer". Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 7 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 speedy delete. per CSD G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pushkar Lodge (Film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. -- HindWiki^Connect 05:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 05:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 05:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Of Virus 2[edit]

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

fails WP:NFILM Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:NFILM - and pretty much everything else.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this thing exist or can it be speedied as a hoax? I've blocked the creator for a week for unrelenting self-promotion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN - I strongly suspect it's a hoax but I can't say with courtroom certainty. Chetsford (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not verifiable. Could be a hoax or a personal video project with absolutely no notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a terrible mess with no regards to grammar and formatting. In addition, there are absolutely no references provided to prove if this film is actually real and one of the "photos" is clearly a cropped picture of someone driving an ATV (or something similar) with the cut out parts still being visible in gray, suggesting that it was an original photo that had nothing to do with this "film" (if it's proven to actually be real). Simply put, there are no reliable sources proving or acknowledging this film's existence, and if it's a hoax, then I suggest a speedy deletion of G3 as a hoax. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 17:29, 6 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 keep, consensus is that substantial coverage of this matter makes the article suitable for inclusion, although a rename may be in order. There is no consensus on that point, so a separate move request should be initiated. bd2412 T 04:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malka Leifer[edit]

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

subject is facing charges but has not been convicted - only notable for crime. Edaham (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that’s a weak reason. Plenty of people, both guilty and innocent, have been accused of a crime but never convicted. Look at OJ Simpson and all the coverage he received during the trial for the murder of his ex wife and Ron Goldman. According to your rationale, all wiki coverage should be deleted because OJ was never convicted. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a story that has broad ranging implications in the Jewish community in Australia, and with Israel-Australia relations, relating to the extradition. Numerous politicians have been involved, and it has been reported widely across the world. There is also the civil case where a record compensation package was demanded. So she is a very notable figure, and worthy of her own page. I fail to see how she is not smellytap 04:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page Edaham (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLP1E, WP:N/CA and WP:PERPETRATOR represent wikipedia policy in this area. It is very common that articles about individuals associated with an event are brought to AfD, and equally common for a determination to be made that an article about the event is a better choice than an article about the person. Please read through the policy and come back to us with your thoughts. A rename of this otherwise very reasonable article may be the way to go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – looks like someone notable for one event, and it's too early to tell if the event itself will have a major impact. The article can be recreated in the future if it is discovered that this had a significant effect on Australia–Israel relations. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tentatively - I'm the nominee. I'm sorry for not filing the alerts properly but I got called off on business almost immediately after making the nomination through our page reviewer tools.
- I nominated this because 1) accusatory terminology is used regarding things with which the subject has not been charged. I quote as an example: "This was the environment that Leifer exploited in order to abuse the children" - While this sentence is sourced it violates WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP 2) Certain facts are ambiguous pending the results of the ongoing court cases. In this case it was a particularly difficult article to scrutinize as it is abundantly sourced. However almost the entire article is written without taking our policy of innocent until convicted into account.
- I'm quite familiar with the policies pertaining to this article, I understand it's well sourced and not suitable for speedy. I am putting it through the AfD process to ensure it gets the scrutiny it deserves and see this as an opportunity for editors to challenge the way it is written as much as have it struck from our pages.
- Pending a rewrite which takes these into account, I think the best thing to do is have the article removed per BLP until such time as it is rewritten to address the above. Move to draft was not the appropriate move, nor is permanent deletion. I simply feel that there are too many BLPCRIME issues there to leave it there until it has been resolved.
- Apologies to the article creator once again for not notifying more quickly. btw the article also requires cats etc - had these been added, other editors might have come along and fixed the issues making this nomination unnecessary
- In summary this underlines the importance of making articles visible by adding cats and by adding articles to wiki projects to allow swifter collaboration.Edaham (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Language can be edited to suit your (or anyone else’s) standards. Feel free. It is one of the things I like best about Wikipedia. If you feel you can improve an article, you can. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-ish, but I'm sympathetic with the nomination. I think this is too significant to brush under the carpet but at least the article should be renamed to be about the event, not the person. It is the event really that matters, not any individual and ten years (almost) is a long time (even my standards) to wait for a verdict. The sources are good and the article is OK too though it needs to have a few slight suggestions of individual guilt removed. So, actually, I'll go with keep in the end. The article set me thinking rather a lot so I'm glad to have read it whatever happens in the real world, and here. Thincat (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded things a bit but in doing so I've discovered a judge has made some extremely damning remarks which I think could, quite legitimately, be made fuller use of. Thincat (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the direction of my vote, I'm mostly in agreement with your summary. There's 100 percent change that this case will have lasting impact and notable effects. I just hope that editors will keep a level head with regard to policy when writing it. The fact that in rare cases our policies might seem to be (temporarily) detracting from an accusation against a particularly unsavory character, isn't a reason not to keep them in mind. This article is practically a text book example of a debatable and unusual case in this respect - and was as thought provoking to evaluate from a policy point of view as it was to read about. Edaham (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I explained above the events are highly significant within the Jewish community, and has mobilised numerous politicians including 2 Prime Ministers. The events are being played out at the moment. However if the decision is to change the name, I would suggest something along the lines of Malka Leifer Sex Abuse Affair/Scandal, since the events are so closely tied to Leifer herself, and known that way in the community. smellytap (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage both in Australia and in Israel (Hebrew and English). Subject had indeed not been convicted - however this is because she chose to become an international fugitive - preventing her trial due to her residing in a country that is not willing to extradite her. Presumption of innocence, in Wikipedia, shouldn't extend to a situation in which the suspect as fled (which would be a situation where the suspect concedes he was very likely to be convicted in the country he fled from).Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per significant coverage in Australia & Israel. Fugitive status is choice of the suspect so a sentence or not ir irrelevant at this point.BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this falls under WP:BLP1E (she's only notable as a result of the criminal investigation), the event itself is probably still notable and the page could be renamed to be about the event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons outlined above, although I do think it would be an improvement if the article were refactored into an article about the incident and subsequent extradition attempts, rather than a coatracky biography. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - significant coverage. No objection to a rename. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 10 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 draftify. Moved to Draft:Flybosnia. Killiondude (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flybosnia[edit]

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

May be a case of TOOSOON for this company created two months ago. No RS in article. A cursory search on Google News finds only the company's launch press release and some incidental mentions in non-RS sources. Once it starts flying it may generate enough RS to pass muster. Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- airlines with scheduled service are generally kept, but this one has not started operating yet. The three citations listed are to the company's blog. WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it's too soon for mainspace. Once they have a specific launch date, flight schedule, IATA code, and ideally secondary references this can be moved back, probably within 6 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As per above. Bingobro (Chat) 11:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with draftify. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I'm convinced. Chetsford (talk) 03:22, 8 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 Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Ivecos (t) 17:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Journey into the Heart of Terror: Ten Days in the Islamic State[edit]

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

The article says nothing about the book, rather it is about the author. I have moved relevant information to the authors page (which is quite a small page by any standard) and this should now be deleted. Elektricity (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and redirect. Content has, by the nominator's statement, been merged to another article, and therefore this page must remain to provide attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no argument for deletion has been given. Also, needs to be kept (at least as redirect) for attribution purposes. —Kusma (t·c) 11:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article about the book describes how Todenhöfer came to write the book, and lists the chapters of the book and provides an image of the cover. The article was the topic of a Did You Know. If anything, a bit of description of what is in each chapter could be added. Having articles about authors and separate articles about books written by those authors is not rare. The nominator for deletion moved content from this article to the one about the author without attributing source. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what are the standards of the page size?. Stub doesn't mean lack of notability and the book equally received coverage as much as its author. The Arabic and Farsi version of the article have more resources for this. And no convincing reason for deletion from the nom.–Ammarpad (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually not as straightforward as some of the previous !votes. The book does not pass NBOOK on English sourcing (Guardian ran it as a serial - so not independent, and there are interviews with the author (which would not confer notability)). The Persian sources are possibly a pass, however assessing them quality and independence wise is perhaps questionable. However it does pass on German sources - e.g. [41] [42] and several others - so more than two non-trivial published works per NBOOK(1).Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG! At least there are enough persian and German sources for on the book itself. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NBOOK, which is a pretty low bar to be sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator of the article. There is some reviews of the book. In other hand reliable sources which cited in the article support the notability of book and this article was nominated for wp:DYK. It contained acceptable size and I tried explain how and why this book was authored. It is clear that wikipedians can add lots of context about book in the article, but it doesn't look to be permitted (based wp:ATD) the deletion of article.Saff V. (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David H. Thompson[edit]

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

This article is only supported by IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source. There is no indication that Thompson ever had a role that would count as a significant role in a major production. Unlike IMDb, Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive directory of all actors to ever be credited in mainstream film productions. My search for additional sources showed multiple other people with this same name, but no sources on this Thompson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article inappropriately sourced with an "External links" section "only" raises several issues that included WP:notability per GNG. Lacking reliable sources evidenced when searching for sources means the article will remain a small unimproved dictionary listing so also just an indiscriminate collection of information. Otr500 (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: IMDb has been deemed as not reliable by editing guidelines even though there has been discussions for inclusion. Important issues raised are potential copyright violations. On the Conditions of Use page, in a section entitled "Copyright": That "All content included on this site ... is the property of IMDb or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws.", and if an article is only sourced with IMBd this certainly raises the concern. Another concern is that when this "crossover sourcing" occurs, an article is essentially unsourced. There are no actual references to cite, as IMDb is not considered reliable, then using it essentially as a wrongly sectioned general reference would be inappropriate. Contentious issues concerning IMDb has led to acceptability as an external link but not as a reliable source at Wikipedia: External links/Perennial websites. Otr500 (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found: I'm only seeing director listings for the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 3 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 keep. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Brownlee[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Definitely passes GNG. Simple Google search shows SIGCOV. He is pretty popular in the Philippines, since he played for the most popular (accepted opinion here in our country) basketball team, especially the buzzer-beater shot that won the team their 1st championship in 8 years. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for basketball players. routine coverage should not be confused for significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I think it passes the guidelines since he played for different league in Europe and here in the Philippines. ^{User:Mmhuang (talk)} 04:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is a quite bit of coverage about him in the Filipino media, like ABS-CBN [43] [44] [45], The Philippine Star [46], GMA New Media [47], Philippine Daily Inquirer [48], TV5 [49]. These all came up through minimum search on Google. So pretty please, with sugar on top, could you set it as your new years resolution to follow WP:BEFORE before nominating these articles. Thanks! -- Dammit_steve (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - before he ever got to the Philippines he met GNG - see this and this and this. He was a prominent player on a prominent college team. Rikster2 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG per the sources above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 04:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Kokoi[edit]

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

Non notable journalist, no independent coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a journalist, even for a prestigious publication, does not always show someone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Csiszer[edit]

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

Non-notable model/host/whatever with no independent coverage to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual. Although I have to admit I have read so many articles today that have IMDb as their only source, I am beginning to wonder if reliable sourcing and other such guidelines still apply in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a TOOSOON. I found some tangential references in Spanish-website articles, but nothing definite. Might be notable eventually. South Nashua (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winner of an Emmy and has worked along several Venezuelan notable journalists, but has insufficient coverage and independent sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, Csiszer meets WP:JOURNALIST criterion 4: "has won significant critical attention" and WP:ANYBIO criterion 1: "person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" because she won an Emmy. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she didn't win an Emmy individually, Un Nuevo Día (which she co-hosts) did for "Outstanding Morning Program in Spanish" [50]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adwerx[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page for a nn business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions, routine news, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. The company has raised $4M in funding which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Created by Special:Contributions/Peter_D_Souza currently indef blocked for sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is funding announcements and promotional crap. The coverage is mostly directory entries or trivial mentions, although the coverage in The News & Observer is almost enough to salvage this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG, references fails WP:NCORP. Corporate spam, Wikipedia is not a platform for marketing. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:20, 6 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plivo[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on a nn private business. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is PR driven, such as [51] on forbes.com/sites/ which is a user submitted area. Article cited to passing mentions, routine corporate news, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Robison[edit]

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

This article by a WP:SPA covers an author of books published via XLibris and Outskirts Press, both self-publishing outlets. The closest thing to a WP:RS cited, does not come up in any external searches, but even if it did, this is a rather obvious autobiography of a self-published author with no substantive independent coverage about the person himself. Guy (Help!) 00:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 02:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; a self-published author with no other claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:AUTHOR. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lee (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Delete this spammy article for a subject who does not really rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. Sources in the article are generally transparently promotional pieces from blogs or pieces by "contributors" to open platforms rather than real journalists for reliable publications. The article itself makes too much effort to strain inherited notability out of "collaborated with" notable entities or people. bd2412 T 00:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn individual & spam created by a sock farm: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luxembompamu. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Wayans[edit]

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

NOTINHERITED. Just because you are a member of a notable family and many of your family members are independently notable doesn't mean that you are notable. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – only has an article because everyone else in her family seems to have one. Already covered at Wayans family#Elvira Wayans. PriceDL (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates she is a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only content and coverage is about her relatives. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings[edit]

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

I see nothing in this event that strikes me as having any LASTING effect (other than, you know, the death and stuff). Basically a combination of NOTNEWS, and the overly undue weight given to the autism angle is a bit disconcerting as well. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur completely with nom, nothing else to really add. Stikkyy t/c 00:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Event unlikely to have a lasting impact. PriceDL (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An AfD debate is also open for this crime at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Long Branch shooting. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to redirest this article (as the discussion was opened slightly later) and continue discussing in one place.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but it's also a bit more detailed (even if there is some undue wording). It doesn't really make sense to do a merge while two AFDs are going on. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are both now headed to delete, probably merding the discussions is indeed not necessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the other discussion and redirected here. Agree that it's headed for delete so it'll probably have been pointless anyways. ansh 666 05:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- And in any case, the perpetrator entry in the infobox has to go. Look in the dictionary. There has been no trial yet. Rhadow (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, even though this article about the incident is more comprehensive than the other. Sadly, the murders of *ONLY* four people in a mass shooting is tragically too ordinary to merit the kind of long-term coverage that would establish notability. Any meaningful content could be preserved by a merge to Long Branch, New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I hate living in a world where this is true, but per WP:NCRIME a four-person shooting is far too routine to be notable. As an alternative, possibly move to draftspace in case something transpires to demonstrate WP:LASTING notability... but either way this article should go, at least for now. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. We have international at this time - e.g. New Jersey boy 'murdered family and friend on New Year's Eve', BBC and coverage has been significant since 1st January to date (3rd January). Coverage might or might not die down (my BALL says the autism angle might be grounds for more coverage) - however this should be evaluated in a few months - at present the sole questionable component for GNG is LASTING - and that can't be evaluated due to the recentness of the event - hence RAPID.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID doesn't just say to keep an article. It mentions alternatives such as moving the article to draftspace until notability is properly established. That seems applicable since there's no evidence of WP:LASTING notability yet. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is possibly to Userfy, but in this case we have SIGCOV - very wide coverage. assessing LASTING here really is a matter of BALL.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Star Line Entertainmet (SLE)[edit]

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

Doesn't fulfil WP:NCORP. Another run-off-the-mill company RedFlame (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and completely fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Owned by: Aizaz ulhassan", page creator Aizazulhassan0, website is facebook page, image is a person and the file is corrupt. I don't see any purpose other than self promotion. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 18:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:21, 6 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 speedy keep. No other outcome is foreseeable. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 17:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karambavane[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Googled this place but little notable stuff surfaced. Moreover, no references to indicate notability and credibility. RedFlame (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added a reference to the 2011 census results. Meets the gazetteer function and WP:NPLACE #3. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The place exists 1. Karambavane Population - Ratnagiri, Maharashtra 2. district census handbook - Census of India (PDF). Easily passes Wikipedia:GEOLAND Ivecos (t) 08:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since it exists, and that is now verifiable, should be kept. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the others above. It is a real population center. --Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 3 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.