< 20 January	22 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Monsieur[edit]

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. Claim to fame of "probably" representing France at the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 fails WP:CRYSTAL. Whole article is probably a little bit too soon. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The french wikipedia article hints at a few reliable sources ([1] from Nice-Matin, which confirms they will run for the eurovision contest; and [2] from Taratata). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article fulfils multiple criterion, and in my opinion, the band is objectively notable enough to have a wikipedia page. Their song "Mercy" is at #2 on French iTunes, they have featured on a Hooverphonic single which got #3 in Belgium, and they have been covered by many news publications. I think to delete this page would be an over-vigorous, bureaucratic, enforcement of one interpretation of the WP:BAND guidelines. There is also a page on the French wikipedia for this band, though I'm not sure if that means anything here. -ThatJosh (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now the subject in article is the representative for France for Eurovision 2018, now notable enough to allow for their article. --PootisHeavy (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I retract my nomination now that they will represent France. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that they are officially the French entry and sources are suddenly plentiful. — fox 23:59, 27 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Nice Mess[edit]

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

A film released in 1972 and then hidden for 40 years by its owner because it was 'terrible'. No refs in the article, 2 external links, 1 to an interesting blog post that says the film made $30,000 at the box office from 7 theatres. The other external link is to imdb. I found similar info to the blog post in the notes section of TCM.com. The film is on youtube and does indeed look terrible. Szzuk (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, I added some of the refs found below to the article. Szzuk (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible or not, coverage appears to be sufficient to establish notability: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Michig (talk) 07:08, 22 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) 17:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Gee[edit]

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

Apart from a IMDb EL, an unsourced WP:BLP for over 11 years. A search failed to find any significant coverage in sources to make this person notable enough even for a basic stub. Mattg82 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources (or, for that matter, any sources) to meet basic notability, and he doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for creative professionals either. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sourcing and a BEFORE shows no non-included RS either. Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A BEFORE found no WP:RS. Fails WP:ANYBIO and creative professionals. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pep Boys. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Radavitz[edit]

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

There's no information here that can't be included in the Pep Boys article. Radavitz doesn't appear to have done anything noteworthy after cashing out of the Pep Boys; he does not seem to meet the general notability guideline, as he's never given more than a brief mention in the sources. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No meeting WP:ANYBIO. No much to go by for merge and Pep Boys page has already mentioned his name. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Pep Boys. Quis separabit? 18:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pep Boys. His name is probably well-known enough to use as a search term, but there's nothing to be written that isn't already in the Pep Boys article.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Film Critics Society[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Only links to organization itself. WikiProject Film has deleted several articles about non-notable regional film-critics groups. Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite it only being formed in 2016, it has garnered significant coverage in various reliable, independent and secondary sources. - Brojam (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, but there's no indication of that whatsoever in the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've added sources. - Brojam (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of hits on Google for the society itself and the members have some notability also. We don't need to list every nom by the group though. Needs improvement. Alaney2k (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It requires improvements but I vote for the Keep. '"Xargov'" 17:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been improved by the addition of reliable sources, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 25 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) 00:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mixdrop[edit]

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

Promotional futurology. No references Rathfelder (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search reveals mostly false positives, largely articles about albums "dropped" by Little Mix. No indication of notability. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "Mixdrop aims to be the national music sharing platform number one song ..." -- seriously? No refs, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:08, 27 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) 17:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Boys FC[edit]

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

This is a team from a non-professional, district sports league, no indication of notability. Prod contested. ... discospinster _talk 21:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FOOTYN and Not registered with the Wales FA. Govvy (talk) 13:23, 23 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. SeraphWiki's detailed analysis of sources is compelling, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way2SMS[edit]

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

References point to either non-notable outlets or passing mentions, a quick WP:BEFORE didn't turn up much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space A quick google search turned up numerous mentions on the service. The current article is not encyclopedic so suggest to move to drafts and build article. Hagennos (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind sharing some of the reputable sources you uncovered? I didn't have such luck. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found a significant mentions like the one's from Hindu, Economic Times,Livemint,NDTV. These are all reputable sources from India which is the primary market for this application. Hagennos (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company has garnered significant coverage in many reliable, independent and secondary sources in India. I reviewed this article and rated it as a Stub. Surely it needs further developments, but that does not mean we must move it to the draft space. Wikipedia says that Stubs are 'ugly ducklings' and are expected to become Swans eventually. And that is why it is a stub. Certainly, deleting it would not make any sense either. However, it is a good idea to seek the consensus of the community. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not encyclopedic but it is also not incorrect, whatever the relevant and important information needs to be provided has been added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrakanth Kollu (talk • contribs) 08:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've reopened this in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. It was closed one day after the first reslist when the only additional comment was by an SPA. Relisting to allow for a more substantial discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Hindu and Economic Times sources appear to be routine announcements. The Livemint source and NDTV source seem ok. But the article is not just a stub, it is promotional, and doesn't discuss what these sources say like The service bombards you with ads, and the promotional emails reached us before the verification mail did. Also, we would recommend against using the Way2sms Android app - it requires a huge list of permissions and this includes "modify or delete the contents of your USB storage", "test access to protected storage", "read sensitive log data" and "precise location (GPS and network-based)". SeraphWiki (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with SeraphWiki's analysis of The Hindu as little more than a press release, and Livemint and NDTV as okay, but would also place The Economic Times in the okay column. Although their news coverage was triggered by a company announcement (just as the media does stories on Facebook when Zuckerberg announces changes to its news feed), Way2SMS's change of direction is business news, not trivial marketing fluff. It's part of a larger market shift, and The Economic Times's story adds history and context not present in any company communiqué.

To these three good sources, one can add an article in Rediff.com, a second Livemint article, an article in Business Standard, and one in The Times of India. These seven articles show the significant coverage, over a period of time, in independent, reliable sources that is called for by WP:CORP. The coverage is even in notable outlets, to satisfy anyone who wishes to add that as a requirement.

Deletion or draftification are not the solution to Hagennos and SeraphWiki's concerns about unencyclopedic and promotional content. The solution was to rewrite the article using the identified sources. The only other recommendation I would make in the context of this discussion is that the article be moved to Way2Online, which is the name of the company. Way2SMS is their best-known brand, and can be retained as a redirect to the company. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it may be "business news" but I also think most M&A, hirings and firings, and routine company announcements are also business news. But as a company, Way2SMS doesn't seem to be notable for anything other than routine announcements about M&A and rebranding per simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued and brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business. There is an article about a legal complaint, but without more then one article about it, I don't think that is going to be enough either. For example:

[8] - is basically a restatement of a company announcement.
[9] is largely based on quotes from the founder
[10] is a routine M&A announcement
[11] launch of a new product (ok, but not enough for notability imo)
[12] another rebranding announcement - this one seems to be for Way2

Which leaves:

[13]
[14] a fraud complaint with no followup sources?
[15] how to send free SMS - ok, because it includes some balancing content, but iffy as a fundamentally promotional "how to" piece.

Adding that I think the WaySMS service is free, but not open-source, and monetized through advertising. (So freemium kind of?) That said the company seems to be a pretty big deal in India, but as far as the sourcing goes, it all looks to be routine and very similar to hundreds of other companies. (See also this similar article LearnSocial for another company/product by the same founder with external links all through the article text).

SeraphWiki (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also per the article creator's talk page User:Chandrakanth Kollu says I am a digital marketers based out of Hyderabad with huge experience in handling online branding for various clients but I don't see any explicit COI declaration anywhere in connection with this article, nor have I asked him about it. His keep vote in this AfD above is This is not encyclopedic but it is also not incorrect, whatever the relevant and important information needs to be provided has been added. Unsurprisingly, the creator of LearnSocial is an SPA with 12 edits all the article, inactive since 2015. There is no COI declaration to that article - probably the two editors are unrelated. Maybe the COI issue should have been followed up on before an AfD? - I don't know how all of that works because I am still relatively new at AfC. SeraphWiki (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SeraphWiki: Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I PROD'd it as spam. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no indications of notability and despite the many Keep !votes above, once again there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding among some editors on the differences between sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability and the *lower* standard of sources required for citations to support facts or information within an article. In order for references to meet the criteria for establishing notability, they must be intellectually independent - broadly speaking, this rules out references that are largely based on company announcements, hiring and firing news and references that rely extensively on interviews and quotations from company employees or related companies. Based on SeraphWiki's analysis of the sources above, I would add that [this livemint article is extensively based on an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND, this timesofindia reference is not about the company but about the ex-CEO with the company being a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and the gadgets.ndtv.com reference relates to using a product provided by the company and is not an in-depth article with company details and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, the topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:36, 24 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! 08:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pegarty Long[edit]

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

Not a notable filmmaker. None of her films have articles. JDDJS (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG at this time. If that ever changes a new article can be created. BTW her sisters article Philomene Long has less notability than this one. I don't know if they can be bundled together or if it needs a separate AFD. The articles were created by the same person and those are almost their only edits so this may be a WP:SELFPROMOTION or WP:COI situation as well. MarnetteD|Talk 21:32, 21 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 Insane Poetry. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sutter Kain Presents Cyco the Snuff Reels[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM; unsourced for over 8 years and I can't find any WP:RS to show that it's notable. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Insane Poetry. I couldn't find anything either, but probably worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Insane Poetry as there is a lack of sources Atlantic306 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; thanks everyone for the improvements. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmira Kakati[edit]

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

Admirable ecological fieldwork, but by my assessment she does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. ~~(That lede statement about discovering 7 cat species threw me, but she actually showed the presence of these species - a slight difference...)~~ fixed that -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have in-depth coverage of her work in major media outlets (The Hindu, National Geographic, Voice of America) over the course of multiple years and covering multiple incidents — it's not just about fieldwork finding cute kitties, she's also played a significant role in anti-development activism in India, as the stories attest. Even before the kitties, she was a "renowned primatologist" according to The Telegraph (Calcutta) [16]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of America addition looks good. I certainly would like for this article to stay, so if these refs are considered to fulfill notability requirements, all the better. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her work has been covered by BBC News and the photographic evidence shows that India's Eastern Himalayan rainforest could be one of the world's largest number of wild cat species, after seven species were recorded in two years.--Parul Thakur (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF with significant contributions + coverage in media towards WP:GNG. Well sourced article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kakati's work has had an invaluable impact on the ecosystem and various services attached to restoration of forests.Source : Case study --Parul Thakur (talk) 13:36, 24 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! 08:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SP-325[edit]

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

I don't think this exists, page history shows editor correcting to 324. It's not listed on Portuguese Wikipedia, not included on List of state highways in São Paulo and I can not find on google maps (but could find 324 and 326) KylieTastic (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; no evidence this exists and some evidence it does not exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:50, 22 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) 00:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Erlichman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While this is written and sourced differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, what it still isn't is referenced to sources that properly establish his notability. Of the 17 footnotes here, nine of them glancingly namecheck his existence within articles that aren't about him; three of them are primary source staff profiles or press releases from his own employers; he's the author, not a subject, of two of them; two are mere blurbs in listicles, not substantive coverage; and the only source that isn't a complete non-starter toward getting him over WP:GNG is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself rather than being written about in the third person by an independent party. All of which means that exactly none of the sources here are cutting it in terms of properly establishing his notability — he has to be the subject, not the author or a name that happens to appear in coverage of other things, in reliable sources that are independent of him, but every single source here fails at least one of those conditions. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 18:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 18:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 18:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 18:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything else that is actually usable. Many sources look reasonable, but at the point of wanting to post them here I have realised they are basically all primary sources. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a journalist who has not received the neccesaary secondary coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 27 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) 17:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little Lions Nursery[edit]

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

There appears to be nothing notable about this nursery school. Tacyarg (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non notable nursery fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not even assertions of notability. --Calton | Talk 02:12, 23 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! 08:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onoken[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; I can find no sources indicating that this is a musician of any note. bd2412 T 16:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artcore (Music Genre)[edit]

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

No reliable sources prove that such a genre is recognized, and the list of "notable artists" contains no artists who are actually notable. The one artist on this list who has an article - also being nominated for deletion - does not mention this genre. bd2412 T 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; I don't know what this is supposed to be, and I find no references that explain it other than a subreddit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep. Mixture of SNOW, WP:SK2+WP:SK3+bundling widely different stuff. It is plainly ridiculous to bundle the 2013 ICC Champions Trophy!!!, at the very least (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011 English cricket season[edit]

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

Delete all in the bundle for non-compliance with the terms of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). Please remember that WP:NOT isn't about notability. All of these articles are notable and that is not the issue here. The problem is that each article is a mass of statistics with no context. To my mind, they are in direct breach of this regulation as collections of indiscriminate statistical information (WP:NOTSTATS). The rest of the bundle is as follows: — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.

Readers can find these statistics on specialist sites and reproduction of them on Wikipedia serves no useful purpose. The articles are about seasonal competitions and readers need descriptive narrative. I regret that I often find articles about 21st century cricket lacking narrative but these are especially bad and I believe they should be considered for deletion. Ziggy (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC) — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are pretty much all on notable topics, for which sources will certainly exist, and not indiscriminate at all. They need improvement, but I don't see a case for deletion. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all WP:NOTSTATS is about "Statistics that lack context or explanation". All of these have some context, even if they contain more stats than prose. Also, they are all the top-level tournaments in (mainly) England for domestic cricket, passing WP:NSEASONS. Included in the bundle is 2013 ICC Champions Trophy, an international cricket tournament! Saying that article should be deleted for being non-notable is nosense. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. I haven't cited notability as a reason to delete. WP:NOT isn't about notability. The articles breach WP:NOTSTATS because they do not explain the excessive statistics in use and they provide little or no context. Notability is not at issue and its introduction into the discussion is irrelevant. I have altered the nomination wording to explain that notability is NOT(!) the issue here. Ziggy (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC) — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (keep all of them) as these are all perfectly valid articles, and the deletion reason is not convincing or a correct interpretation of policy. Despite the nominators comments, these are not "just lists of numbers". Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these articles go by the WP:NSEASONS as it is part of the English Cricket calendar. I just find it obscured that you thought about deleting these articles. Matt294069 is coming 22:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Regardless of whether or not the articles are notable, some of them have been around for years and still have not been improved beyond tables of information. Also nobody has said they are "just lists of numbers", but as they currently are (and as some of them have been for several years) they are not in compliance with WP:NOT. Ideally the articles would be improved so that they don't breach WP:NOTSTATS, especially since the information is all basic info that can be obtained from other sites. TripleRoryFan (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts, and WP:SOFIXIT regarding most of these, and a whole lot of WP:BEFORE not done on these too. Nate • (chatter) 00:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nate, as with other editors above, you have assumed that the issue is notability. You are citing policies and guidelines here without taking account of their applicability. WP:BEFORE requires: "(reference to) the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)". The first three are fine in all these articles but the fourth one isn't. All these articles are in breach of WP:NOT. Ziggy (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC) — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't deleting the whole lot of these. It would be one thing if these stats, venues and tourneys are complete lies. They aren't. They took place. The statistics are well sourced to them. And we're not deleting an article dealing with one edition of cricket's Olympic tourney equivalent. Improvement, not the nuclear option of removing all content and starting over, is definitely the preferred way to go forward here. Nate • (chatter) 13:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator. I have tried three times now to explain that the issue with these articles is excessive statistics. The only editor who has so far understood that is TripleRoryFan. I agree completely that the articles all meet the terms of WP:Notability, which is WP:N in site shorthand. The problem is that they breach WP:NOT which is site shorthand for WP:What Wikipedia is not and my specific concern within WP:NOT is the WP:NOTSTATS regulation within WP:IINFO. May I please ask the administrator to ignore all editors who are trying to use notability as the reason for keeping the articles because it is a false (by mistake) argument? Yes, the articles are all notable but, no, they do not comply with WP:IINFO. Take 2015 NatWest t20 Blast as an example. It has a file size of 567kb of which a mere 1,426 characters (254 words) are readable prose in the form of a brief introduction and a brief description of the tournament structure. The rest is statistical with no narrative about events or even a report of the final. I actually attended that final as a follower of my native Lancashire and I am a lifelong fan of cricket so, yes, I personally fully understand what all those statistics are telling me but what are they telling readers who know little or nothing about cricket? Ziggy (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC) — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that article can be fixed by normal editing, as AfD is not for cleanup. Just because there is little prose, does not equate to deletion. All of the competitions are covered by multiple news outlets, showing their notability. Issues on stats overload can be addressed on each article's talkpage, if needed. Every single fixture in the 2015 NatWest t20 Blast has a full match report which could be used to expand the article, if anyone wanted to put the effort into doing that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Futher comment to an admin - Looking at the edit history of the nom, they've been here all of three weeks, and within their second day of being here created this AfD. For someone who is "new" they do know a lot about the ins-and-outs of WP from the get-go. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this AFD process is Chinese Fireworks Science, is it? Your supporter Ilyina also has a very good understanding of Chinese Fireworks after making only a couple of hundred edits but apparently she is okay. You should read the WP:AFD page and you will see that the instructions are so well-written (unlike these cricket articles) that any reasonably intelligent person, including unregistered users, can easily follow them and make use of the facility, tedious though it may be. Oh, and have you ever heard of IP users? Take Southport F.C., for example, on which the vast majority of edits have been done by people using IP addresses. These people probably learned a lot about "ins-and-outs" before they ever thought of trying a "get-go". Someone with 700,000 edits is presumably part of the institution and is allowed to bandy bad faith accusations around. Ziggy (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC) — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. I can spot a WP:SOCK from a mile off, and all the alarm bells about your account are ringing very loud. Would you care to disclose any previous accounts, including IP addresses, you've edited as, seeing as you are a "newbie"? Try and do that before you retire this account. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Please focus on the topic at hand. If you believe someone is misusing multiple accounts, WP:SPI is that way. This discussion is not about the nominator as a person but about their arguments and it should stay that way. Regards So Why 13:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SoWhy. Just to note that Sigurd Hring/Ziggy was indef blocked in the last hour for being a sock. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My keep recommendation above was specifically taking into account WP:NOT, the nominator is incorrect in their deletion rationale. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Now here's just a collection of numbers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nominator's comment, "the articles all meet the terms of WP:Notability". Deli nk (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They'd (mostly) be better articles with more narrative, but I don't think they breach WP:NOTSTATS. Johnlp (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are all notable enough. I'd suggest maybe a speedy keep, since this nomination was started by a sock. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close bad faith nomination- It is very clear what's going on here. The nominator's sockmaster, User:BlackJack, recently devoted a lot of time and attention to defending articles on obscure one-game cricket players. Many of those articles have ended up deleted because a lot of people argue that raw statistical entries are not suitable sources to base prose articles on. Now he's started a bunch of frivolous cricket AfDs with similar reasoning with the aim of making that viewpoint look silly. It's a false flag operation and, though I had a low opinion of BlackJack previously, I'm surprised he's descended this far. Speedy close. Nothing good can come of this. Reyk _YO! 08:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we do need to look at how we can fix articles on individual seasons by refining more than we have done the articles in question. In a perfect world, as per football clubs by season, I foresee there being not only articles for every first-class and list A cricketing tournament but for individual teams' seasons (at least in England/Wales). Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 1895 etc.. The question, in each case, is how much content will be purely statistical and how much prose we are able to add. There is, one has to assume, such a thing as too much information - such as some people believe articles like Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 include. Are the 2005 season articles an example of this? Who knows.

A supplementary point - regarding "defending single-appearance cricketers", as I have stated over and over again there are much more confusing things on the project. Why don't people take as much offense to articles like Headley Keith (I chose one at random) whose article comprises a single line of text prose and has received no improvement in 12 years - or indeed Test cricketer articles (I'm sure there are still some which exist) which contain zero references or external links? This strikes me as gross hypocrisy. Bobo . 10:21, 23 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 Kerala Blasters FC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manjappada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article contents already explained in detail at Kerala Blasters FC supporters section, no need for separate article. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect : This has been previously discussed and deleted. Speedy delete (G4) might apply too. Coderzombie (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As GiantSnowMan suggested, this is a feasible search term, so better to redirect and protect. Coderzombie (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as possible search term but protect to prevent the redirect beng hijacked again. Giant Snowman 16:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Create a redirect, but protect it. Coderzombie (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in the article shows significant coverage in independent RS, So it passes WP:GNG.-Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kerala Blasters FC. MT Train^Discuss 05:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I declined the speedy on the basis that the previous AfD asserted notability purely on the basis of coverage received for a song composed by the group. In this instance there seems to be wider third party coverage of the fan group as an entity in itself that is not directly linked to coverage of the team they support. Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
a very week keep...There seems just about enough sourcewise to establish notability. But I still think really the subject could easily be contained in the article on the kick-the-ball team. BTW I was responsible for speeding this.TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge Kerala Blasters FC Is not a big article at all, the supports group should be on the main article if anything. Passing WP:GNG doesn't always mean having a separate article from the main subject when both can be fitted into one article. Govvy (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kerala Blasters FC No need to spilt. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:52, 27 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 Urban area. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban agglomeration[edit]

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

The same as Urban area, but without significant content. Batternut (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into urban area. They both even use the same shot of Tokyo. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; the nominator's not made a valid argument for deletion. It's a valid argument for redirecting the article to urban area, but "same as X, without significant content" is neither a valid reason to get rid of the history nor a valid reason to make this a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to urban area would indeed be sensible. I see no reason for haste though. Batternut (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to urban area. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Urban area, because a great deal of information in this article is not in the Urban area article. Redirection alone will not really improve Wikipedia's coverage about the topic of urban agglomeration, but a merge would. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JB Junction[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Both cited refs are self-published (official website and YouTube channel). Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no reliable sources that cover this topic. MT Train^Discuss 09:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 05:37, 26 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! 08:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Mallick[edit]

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

The article was earlier moved to user space, since it didnt meet Page creation guidelines, having not a single reference, or indication of notability. Editor has been suggested to complete the article in user space. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 14:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 14:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 14:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 14:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't prove notability. MT Train^Discuss 06:37, 22 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. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 06:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niko De Vera[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. Subject of notable national awards, GNG topic including one of the less than 1% of college soccer athletes to get drafted and goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Only mild concern might be WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, but I think the NCOLLATH topics absolve that. Cobyan02069 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space, De Vera only partially meets WP:NCOLLATH, since he was drafted, but albeit very late in the draft, which often doesn't merit a player going to play professional minutes and therefore is probably routine coverage,. De Vera probably will, but not for a few months with a USL, and that's an if. But to not waste the time of the creator or the admins, it'll be easier to keep a draft, and if/when he plays a professional match move to article space and then blank the draft. Quidster4040 (talk) 05:05, 22 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 of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or wider GNG. @Cobyan02069: @Quidster4040: can one of you help clarify what element of NCOLLATH he passes? I don't see anything there that indicates being drafted is in itself sufficient for notability, plus, at this stage in his career it would seem to be WP:BLP1E to me. Am I missing something? Fenix down (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: I put that he partially could meet NCOLLATH, because he was named to the All-MAC First Team and All-United Soccer Coaches Midwest Regional teams, which I think is still in the grey area of notability. Had he won MAC Player of the Year, or was named an All-American, which generates WP:SIGCOV from tertiary and secondary sources, I would then think he would entirely meet NCOLLATH. However, his honors usually only trigger primary sources from the athletics website and the conference website. However, there might be some secondary and third party sources that cover his accomplishments to date, making me think he might meet NCOLLATH. I also say move to draft space, because I think being drafted past the second round of the MLS SuperDraft does not normally merit a professional contract, and often only results in primary sources covering him being drafted, such as the MLS team's website or the respective college athletics website. Normally, when a player is drafted in the first or second round, it garners enough media attention, to me, to meet GNG and go beyond ROUTINE coverage. I usually see routine coverage as the MLS team's website and the college athletics website covering the player in mind being drafted. So that being said, I'm unsure if De Vera meets NCOLLATH entirely, or GNG. However, I say move to the draft space, since he could in the future be notable, and this is just a WP:TOOSOON article. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and despite claims that the subject meets WP:GNG, nobody has added any sources to the article that are not WP:ROUTINE or WP:PRIMARY to demonstrate this is the case. I'm not convinced his success in being drafted is enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH either. Jellyman (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really can't see any indication of him meeting GNG or passing the basics of NFooty. Govvy (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went ahead and userfied the article, since it might not be ready for its own article, but might meet GNG with full consensus in the future. This way we won't have to waste additional time recreating the article again if a delete consensus is reached. The article can be found here Quidster4040 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by SlimVirgin, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Smagin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Smagin

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

Press secretary of a municipal district deputy would not meet WP:NPOL. It does not seem he is close to meeting GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedily, and salt as yet another recreation of Andrey Smagin, which has been previously deleted four times and salted. I'll leave it to an admin to determine if the current incarnation is G4-worthy. Article creator Astraekt is on his third username under this account, having previously edited as VikiLaikeR199 and Joshua57 prior to assuming his current guise, and he has been attempting to make an article on this person the whole time, in addition to articles on his high school (High school No. 1637 (Moscow)), other activities in which he was involved (The reconstruction of the Moscow cinema Glory, since merged and redirected to Cinema Glory (Moscow)), and family members (Andrey Smagin (musician), the subject's uncle if I recall correctly). Even leaving aside past history and looking at the current version, though, the provided sources are passing mentions, run-of-the-mill listings and autobiographical material which collectively fall far short of meeting WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 22:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article creator has requested a page blank, and so I have tagged the article as a G7.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:39, 22 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 List of high fantasy fiction. I don't see a similar list for low fantasy works, will leave List of low fantasy works as no consensus with the encouragement of any interested parties to discuss on the talk page an appropriate redirect target. J04n(talk page) 16:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of high fantasy works[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because their content is similar:

The membership of the list is relatively indiscriminate, with the vast majority never having been referred to as high fantasy in a reliable source. Entirely WP:OR listcruft. Super Mario Bros and Naruto are high fantasy? I think not..._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High Fantasy is a relatively well defined genre, and there's nothing about the nom's complaint that couldn't be remedied by trimming inappropriate entries--i.e., those not termed high fantasy by an RS. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that it is not "relatively well defined" as there seem to be two competing definitions that are wholly different. As explained in the low fantasy article, one definition is that it takes place in a different world and the other is that it has a mythic scope. The two definitions conflict making it unsuitable for a solidly defined list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep. Absolutely every entry on this list should have a reference, and a direct reference from a reliable, non-primary source that calls the entry "high fantasy" (or, for the low fantasy list, "low fantasy"), not merely a description that a Wikipedia editor thinks is high-fantasyish. Ideally two references, since that way one loony critic can only do so much damage (and if two, then a primary source might be acceptable as a "back-up"). Move all the other entries to the talk page or a subpage. (If this is not done, then delete.) SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that there's been no change, I propose these articles be redirected to low fantasy and high fantasy. If someone ever wants to start again, they can dig up the current info from the revision history. SnowFire (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all unsourced entries in each of these lists. Then we may want to merge "low" and "high" fantasy and create these lists based on medium instead. I can imagine sourcing a List of fantasy books and a list of fantasy films and TV series, but sourcing in any more detail will be difficult. I cannot find any reliable sources that list high or low fantasy works. For what it's worth, I think these articles could just be deleted per WP:TNT. ~Mable (chat) 17:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High fantasy and Low fantasy pages. High fantasy already has multiple lists of works articles, including a really long infobox of examples. Low fantasy's examples section is good enough to show concept. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added video games and anime and manga wikiprojects since the examples provided are from those groups. But yes, Naruto and Mario could be classified as high fantasy since they take place in fictional worlds. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Could be classified" - maybe. But I don't think anyone has ever classified them as such._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Passerby editors do on occasion, with the Mario, Sonic, and Zelda type games I mainstain, but its something we generally remove in clean up efforts, as its not usually how the video game industry labels them, even if it may technically be pretty similar to the definition. For what its worth. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not about whether editors call them that, because that is WP:OR. If any reliable sources have called them that, then that is different._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know that. You said anyone, and I was explaining on how WikiProject members have handled it in the past. I'm not arguing against you. I'm currently undecided on whether or not its too WP:INDISCRIMINATE of a list topic or not, so I was just giving you some background on the subject for now. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Controversial statements should either be sourced to a reliable source or not be included. Either way, this is not relevant for the deletion discussion. ~Mable (chat) 23:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as there are sufficient inclusion rules, which should be at minimum: the work is blue-linked as a standalone article, and that there are at least one reliable source calling it "high fantasy", then the list is fine. --Masem (t) 22:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are multiple List of high fantasy articles: High Fantasy itself with the huge infobox, List of high fantasy fiction, List of high fantasy works, List of high fantasy films and TV series. This needs to be better organized. The "works" one overlaps with the fiction (most books) and film and TV articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, if there's already a "List of high fantasy fiction", then what's the difference between that topic and this one? Shouldn't all of these be merged? ~Mable (chat) 19:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hence the confusion. How many lists do people want of the same thing? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Because no objective criteria exists, this is impermissible original research, verging on fancruft. --Rpclod (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least two other editors have pointed out that an RS calling a work a high fantasy is an appropriate inclusion criterion. Few things in Wikipedia lists are truly objective; going by what RS'es call something is more the norm than the exception. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of high fantasy fiction, which has existed at that title for over 12 years. Merging isn't necessary since nothing is sourced. List of low fantasy works can redirect to Low fantasy, which already has a mostly sourced list. It can be split out later if the article gets overly long, which is not the case at present. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth: List of high fantasy fiction is also largely unsourced, has redlinks (mostly works by bluelinked authors, except for 2 authors who have bluelinked titles), and contains possible OR as of January 2015. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, which is why another unsourced list shouldn't be merged into it, but redirected. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind having all the high fantasy redirects go to List of high fantasy fiction and having that list scrubbed with references, but does it need to be doubly listed as an infobox of examples on High fantasy as well? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen such an infobox before, and I certainly oppose to it being there. It seems like people really enjoy listing high fantasy works. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to List of high fantasy fiction. Per WP:FORK we should not have two lists covering the same territory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that List of high fantasy works, List of low fantasy works were created on 25 December 2017. List of high fantasy films and TV series was created in 2013 with the original intent of contrasting List of high fantasy fiction which has been around since 2005. The examples list infobox for High Fantasy was created on 8 June 2017. Low fantasy's examples list, which is in the main article as a section, was developed around 2013. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might warrant another discussion, perhaps at the talk page, but I also recommend deletion of the High Fantasy Examples box in High fantasy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge the content to similar longer articles and ensure everything listed is also list ted there. Other wise delete. DoctorHver (talk) 20:51, 25 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) 00:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Crowe (Emmerdale)[edit]

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

Totally unsourced (since 2006) article about a character in Emmerdale which is all unsourced plot summary/original research. No significant coverage found. The character doesn't even get a mention in the Emmerdale article. Michig (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Removing articles like this is one of the best ways at least partially to reverse Wikipedia's Anglosphere bias. I might possibly support the retention of such articles if we had articles about similar characters in telenovelas, but as it stands ... no question; this has to go. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that an article can last over a decade without any sources shows that Wikipedia needs stronger, tighter guidelines on creating articles. The AfC process is helping, but I still think more needs to be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 27 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! 08:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EntitySpaces[edit]

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

This has been here for the best part of 10 years without any evidence of independent coverage or any other suggestion of notability. A search for independent coverage found very little, e.g. this. If this had been a widely used/important product, I would expect to find more substantial mentions in books. Michig (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no real notability found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:49, 23 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) 17:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grand River Transit bus fleet[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:FANCRUFT. Lists of bus fleets are best suited for wikia or dedicated fansites not Wikipedia

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where is this information even from? I can't find any reliable, independent sources that go into this much depth about the individual buses of the fleet. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is hardly the kind of content we need to maintain about a municipal transit system — the content isn't verifiable, the information isn't noteworthy or even of interest to anybody but a small clique of extreme trainspotters, and since a municipal transit system's stock of vehicles will evolve over time as old buses are retired and new ones are purchased and put into service, it isn't even maintainable. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 23 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 Mountain Goats discography. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why You All So Thief?[edit]

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

Lonstanding unreferenced album. With no notability claimed or otherwise. Mattg82 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either article on Mountain Goats or article on Simon Joyner - this entry in Wikipedia is too brief to merit its own article. Vorbee (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. If we delete this, all we really lose is the track listing. The tracks could be added to the the Mountain Goats discography/Simon Joyner articles if anyone felt it was worthwhile. A redirect to Mountain Goats discography would be acceptable as probably the more notable of the two artists involved. --Michig (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This could never be anything more than a track listing so merging is not necessary. I am leaning toward redirecting to Mountain Goats discography because I think we can safely agree the group is more notable than Joyner.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:51, 21 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! 08:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Madden[edit]

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

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article by DAWN, Educationist: A modern day hero is published by them in their magazine, which they received from Notre Dam school graduates. Störm (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered amply as a foreign educationist working in Pakistan; see eg. [17] [18] [19] [20] Mar4ed (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to give independent sources, not affiliated or COI ones. Also, read the note above for your DAWN source. Störm (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no problem over the probable accuracy, but I do not think she is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Is not mentioned at all in the mainstream media. Seems to only be covered in closely related sources. Fails WP:GNG. Kb.au (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Critical Thinking[edit]

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

Seems to fall well short of WP:ORG; no significant coverage turns up in a Google News search. Goodnightmush ^Talk 01:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 21 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) 00:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Metro bus fleet[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT and a lot of original research. Lists of bus fleets are best suited for wikia or dedicated fansites Ajf773 (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Useful information, several other articles on transit agencies have fleet pages. Please read WP:NOCRUFT. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 23:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bus fleet articles are generally rare, a search shows less than 10 active with many others have deleted over time. Secondly, as an editor who has made 277 to this article since creation, I believe you'd had ample opportunities to provide reliable sources to affirm the notability of the subject. Press releases (including twitter) from the transit agencies are hardly sufficient and only covers a very bit of content. As for this page being WP:CRUFT or WP:NOTCRUFT this is bus fancruft and we don't need to know the details of every single bus in a companies fleet. Ajf773 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article completely lacks reliable, independent sources. If there are no such sources that talk about the bus fleet in this much detail, then Wikipedia should not include those details. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not the kind of content we should be keeping or maintaining — it's not verifiable in reliable sources that are independent of the transit system's own self-published press releases about itself, the information isn't noteworthy or even really interesting to most people, and since a transit system's bus fleet will evolve over time as old buses are retired and new ones are purchased and deployed it's not even really maintainable. It's not a thing that reliable sources address at all. While it's true that there are a few other similar articles for other bus transit fleets, the principle of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies: it's not a reason why this should be kept, but a reason why the others should be deleted too. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearcat, mainly because of the failure of WP:V, but other reasons too.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:58, 27 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! 08:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Lamb[edit]

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)).

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

Candidates do not meet WP:Notability without some other notability. This individual does not meet that criteria. Mpen320 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Conor Lamb is an active U.S. House of Representatives candidate in an upcoming special election in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District scheduled for later this year, and Lamb has been nominated by one of the two major U.S. political parties in the special election in question. Lamb's candidacy has received considerable traditional media coverage, as others have noted.

--AaronCamp (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis individual is the current candidate for a US Congressional seat. When this article was first created last month, he received coverage by publications such as the Washington Post and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. In the past few weeks, his candidacy has been covered by The New York Post, Daily Beast, CNN, Fox News, Mother Jones, Washington Examiner.

Prior to running for office, his legal career was covered by the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/marine-pleads-guilty-to-lying-in-sexual-misconduct-case-says-he-crossed-the-line/2017/04/13/d3fd9cf6-2064-11e7-a0a7-8b2a45e3dc84_story.html, Military.com https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/04/14/major-gets-90-days-brig-lying-sexual-misconduct.html, APNewswire https://www.apnews.com/bbd02fca17cf4ac89d1f82eb7d1a336f,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazer78 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The coverage has nothing to do with Lamb, it is coverage of a special election, which happens with all special elections, since they are looked to as potential bell-weathers and referendums on various administrations. The coverage of Lamb as such is routine, and does not change the fact that canddiates for congress have been long agreed to be non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2018. There is no notability outside of that one election, but it is a useful redirect term for that election. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LtNOWIS (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2018 for now. If he wins the election then he gets an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. NPOL fail for now.Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the ongoing, INDEPTH national coverage Lamb is drawing. Yes, he's only a candidate, a young, aspiring politician with all the right moves in his bio (JAG; assistant U.S. Attorney; looks nice in a jacket and tie) but that would not get him kept. What does is the coverage, Daily Beast, Dec. 15: Is This Marine Veteran the Next Doug Jones? and lots more in national publications, ~~not to metionn international coverage like The Times (of London)~~(oops) Democrats pick Marine vet, former prosecutor Conor Lamb as 18th Congressional District special election candidate, which does not generally do reported, in-depth coverage of races in the colonies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except you've just made an argument to delete this. All of this coverage is coverage of the election centered on Conor Lamb. In the case of the Times, they are covering the two respective nominations with a focus on Lamb (as he's the underdog). Also, the Times you linked to is a newspaper in Beaver, Pennsylvania owned by GateHouse Media in Perinton, New York.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL3. states that mere candidates "can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." and we do keep candidates when a race is drawing sufficient non-local attention, Tim Canova and Lee Busby come to mind.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:NPOL3. Tim Canova had a scholarly career as a law professor in addition to prior activism outside of his campaign. His article also has 41 citations covering both his campaign and prior activism. By contrast Lamb's article has 13 citations. The only citation that does not cite the race itself is a WaPo article that cites a brief quote from Captain Lamb with no other elaboration.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, this: [21] is how Tim Canova looked when it was nominated for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep He appears to have been profiled as an ADA as well as his campaign. --RAN (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that his role as an Assistant U.S. Attorney would not establish notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references determine notability, not the job title. No one is arguing that his job title is inherently notable. --RAN (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of coverage and former US Attorney. Clear keep.Casprings (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a United States Attorney. He was an Assistant United States Attorney. A district's United States Attorney is a presidential appointment. An Assistant United States Attorney is a civil service appointment. For more on the subject see United States Attorney.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. The only claim of notability is as a candidate in a special election (assistant US attorneys generally aren't notable), and it's not a particularly high-profile special election. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania's_18th_congressional_district_special_election,_2018#Democratic_convention where the subject is mentioned. Anything worth saying about the candidate could be done in a couple of sentences there. A plausible search term, but insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Does not meet WP:NPOL as un unelected candidate, and there's nothing better just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This received a non-admin closure and is now relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 January 13.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that he continues to receive national coverage. See here and here. His coverage is wiread and while he is WP:N. While his WP:N comes form one event, the amount of coverage clearly justifies an article on his on. I think this should be keep.
Keep Since the last discussion of this article Lamb has received much more national-level coverage. Searine (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets GNG. Salon, Reuters, Washington Post, etc. Coverage includes role as Assistant U.S. Attorney, as well as congressional candidate. BLP1E does not apply. --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. MB298 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article meeths the WP:GNG policy, and there is a fair amount of national coverage that is ongoing and relevant. Therefore more than just routine election coverage. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG. That's all we need. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be accurate, Andy, we also need to check against BLPIE and WP:NOT. But I'm confident that's not an issue in this case. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, has ongoing, relevant national-level coverage. Kekki1978 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely keep. I'm shocked to see this even be proposed for deletion. Should Wikipedia have deleted the page on Doug Jones a month before that special election? - Gregory N, 3:28 PM EST 1/22/18 —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, center of substantial national coverage. David Baron (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Connor Lamb seems to me to meet the WP:GNG. The article itself also seems reasonably well-sourced from a mix of respectable news outlets and has been expanded and improved since initial nomination for deletion. Williw (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(I moved this from talk page --MB298 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)): "Keep- I regularly wiki politicians to see what their education, work life, positions are. I do not live in Pennsylvania, so maybe I don't belong in this discussion... However, I do follow politics pretty closely, and am extremely grateful when I can get a bio on somebody. Young, yes...politically untried, okay...but please keep the info out there for people who do research candidates. Not being diligent in looking at the character of a candidate is not a good thing for a politically active person.--Barbbuxtonnc (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)"[reply]
We currently have eleven KEEP comments in a row. Is that enough to close this discussion and remove the 'Considered for deletion' box from the top of Lamb's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory N (talk • contribs)

It was relisted on the 21 January 2018 so procedure would be to close the discussion on the 28 January 2018, which is 7 days after listing. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering he's currently got a reasonable % chance - around 39% according to Predict It ^[22] of being elected to congress in 7 weeks, definitely makes sense to keep the article for now - would suggest revisiting after the special election
Keep. Lamb has currently got a good chance of being elected to Congress, and the special election has attracted a lot of attention so far, with the DCCC and NRCC spending and Trump himself campaigning here. District101 (talk) 22:51, 26 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. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of death metal bands, !–K[edit]

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

The way this list is set up, as a purely alphabetical listing of notable bands with no additional information, makes it entirely redundant to Category:Death metal musical groups. Retaining it adds nothing to the encyclopedia and creates maintenance overhead. Sandstein 12:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein I assume has not read the long-standing guideline which clearly says that you can't delete a list just because there is also a category. For me this is a clear keep. Also lists do not have a maintenance overhead because that is like saying the encyclopedia has a maintenance overhead, it's a moot point. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC) (edited per below)[reply]

Snow keep Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is a guidline, not a policy, but it is a long-standing principle that lists and categories serve different functions - we don't delete lists just because they overlap with a category, and vice-versa. None of the rationale provided by User:Sandstein is among the valid reasons for deletion listed on the deletion policy page.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My preference is to keep and expand it with more details, e.g. country of origin, years active. --Michig (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Lists go hand-in-hand with categories, etc and futhermore, this is one of the rare lists that seems to be a) fully sourced and b) contains nothing but blue links. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. In my opinion, they could all be merged in one list instead of two split. Ajf773 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN Agree with merge into one article. Some people push for splitting articles just based on size, rather than logic. Trackinfo (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:NOTDUP. Also keep as per WP:LISTPURP as a valuable navigational aid. For example, see statistics below, which denote how List of death metal bands, !–K functions as such, compared to the category page, which has meager page views. Deletion would simply make it more difficult for users to find information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of death metal bands, !–K – 6,423 page views in the last thirty days
Category:Death metal musical groups – 46 page views in the last thirty days

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 DGG. Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria CSD G11, A7, G4. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binod Bhagat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Presumably self published page with no citation jojo@nthony (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non notable fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could probably be A7'd. --Michig (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was deleted at the last AfD, and presumably recreated. It does not meet the policy for inclusion. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by Binodbhagat describing a man with a job, as does the sole reference. No sustainable claim to notability, no reason to overturn the previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 21 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia–San Miguel rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NRIVALRY. This match-up is being labelled as a rivalry only when they meet in the Finals. Yes, there are a few mentions of them being a rivalry, and they could really be said as a rivalry, but the coverage is not significant enough to be said as notable here in wiki. Fails WP:GNG. Stats in infobox are also unsourced. Could also be WP:OR. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:38, 21 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska–Magnolia rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NRIVALRY. This match-up is being labelled as a rivalry only when they meet in the Finals. Yes, they have played each other many times, for they are two of the oldest teams in the PBA, and they could really be said as a rivalry, but the coverage is not significant enough to be said as notable here in wiki. Fails WP:GNG. Stats in infobox are also unsourced. Could also be WP:OR. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 21 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) 17:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of current American soccer players by US state[edit]

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

PROD contested way back in 2013. This list is far too big in scope, unreferenced, out-of-date, ill-defined, and (most importantly) non-notable per WP:LISTN. Giant Snowman 10:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - this is what the categories are for, but it is a notable topic and I'm not exactly trigger happy when it comes to deleting. Cobyan02069 (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The scope of the list becomes problematic when it is a current list that requires continual updating (especially given it's outdated by almost four years). Not only that, there is no real association given for each entry relative to the state they are listed under. Therefore fails WP:LISTN Ajf773 (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the topic is not notable as players represent clubs or national teams, not states, so they are not generally discussed in this context. The category heriarchy is a much more appropriate place to classify them in this manner. Jellyman (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:LISTN, not seeing any evidence that there is any significant discussion of American soccer players based on their state of birth. Fenix down (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – pretty unsustainable as new players will always have to be added. As previously mentioned a series of categories for said subjects already exists, and if someone is born in say Idaho but grows up and goes to college in California, what state are they from now? Inter&anthro (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly Listcraft, as mentioned above cats are available. Govvy (talk) 13:04, 23 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) 00:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik kincl[edit]

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

Reason PRAHAha (talk) 10:12, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AFD appears to have been started in error by the article's creator, who wanted only to move the page to the correct capitalisation (this has now been done). Those with knowledge of the field may assess the validity of the sources as establishing notability. Promotional tone and unsourced opinion statements need attending to: Noyster (talk), 11:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 11:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Error or not and the cringe worthy promotional tone aside. Subject does not meet any notability criteria more specifically WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.PRehse (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. Fails to meet WP:NMMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier MMA fights, which means he fails to meet WP:NMMA. All of the coverage, even the Czech ones listed, is routine sports reporting and that means he also fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 23 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! 08:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ESN KAPA Athens[edit]

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

Individual chapters are not notable inherently. Fails WP:GNG. See Erasmus Student Network. Störm (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A BEFORE found only primary and passing source. Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ESN Latvia[edit]

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

Individual chapters are not notable inherently. Fails WP:GNG. See Erasmus Student Network. Störm (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary references, and local student groups like this generally are not notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Kaspar Wenig[edit]

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

Unremarkable person who undoubtedly existed, founded a butchery store, and died. Nice article for a local or family history magazine or book, but not appropriate for an international encyclopedia. PamD 10:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows Wenig was more than a local store owner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was a large land owner, there is a street named after him, and he was written about as a prominent citizen in the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrwv2 (talk • contribs)
Delete- nothing exists to establish notability--Rusf10 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Workplace relationships. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace romance[edit]

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

Article seems to be a messy essay with some how-to. No indication of notability as a topic; in fact, not discussed as an encyclopedic topic. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workplace relationships. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is evidently notable and being a "messy essay" is the normal state of Wikipedia articles and, per our editing policy, is not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: How do you feel about the merge and redirect to Workplace relationships I have proposed below? There is a section in that article on workplace romance, and if the section is developed, the content can be broken out again. bd2412 T 01:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose merger. The workplace relationships topic covers a variety of substantial types including friendships and hierarchy. Romance at work is a massive and distinct topic with plenty of aspects and sub-topics including flirting, sexual harassment, fictional treatments &c. Andrew D. (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that in some future state of the article, but not in the article as it currently exists. bd2412 T 04:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extremely poorly written and sourced. JDDJS (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the very small amount that is neutrally sourced and written in an encyclopedic tone to Workplace relationships. bd2412 T 01:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As other have said poorly sourced and poorly written. The article is likely original research. If we were to remove all the unsourced information there would only be a couple paragraphs left.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:01, 23 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 Bliss Media. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Han[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted in an AfD discussion. It has now been restored, but the issues from the most recent AfD persist: there is a bit of a citation overkill in the article, but none of the sources is about the subject of the article - rather they are about films promoted or imported by the company which she is the CEO of, and sometimes (not always) her name is mentioned in passing. It is not at all clear that the company is notable, and in any case notability is not inherited. There's been some COI issues but that's not really the problem now - the problem is lack of notability, plain and simple. bonadea contributions talk 20:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bliss Media, since the articles are almost identical (and built by the same SPA/meatpuppets). As mentioned in the previous AFD, she is more like an investor rather than an actual filmmaker. Timmyshin (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge' as suggested. Should be covered, butnot in a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, seems a valid option Atlantic306 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HETDIMO[edit]

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

"No indication of individual notability, nothing suggests it meets WP:NSONGS"+WP:COI concerns, was PRODded. Kleuske (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to Lilit Hovhannisyan. Just a song recorded by someone. No evidence that it's genuinely a single, just a track that can be downloaded like millions of others. --Michig (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only sources in article are for the song's own listings and the song has not achieved notability of its own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:10, 25 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) 00:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Agarwal[edit]

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

WP is not for profiling purposes. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, don't see evidence of notability under WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST. --joe decker ^talk 18:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a tribute page on an unremarkable business executive. The language is over the top "Creative Leader"! "Trained magician"! Wikipedia is not a collection of fan pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. anyone can do the redirect if the proposed target survives Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dakshin Dinajpur District Central Cooperative Bank[edit]

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

Having difficulty meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORG as no secondary sources independent of the subject are provided to show notability of this bank. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Bengal State Coop Bank, the parent company. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history. It's possible that the parent company is not notable itself; but at the very least, there's no need to maintain two separate stubs when a single article can do the job just as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, samee ^talk 09:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability. I see no reason to redirect to another stub article that also has no indications of notability (and which I've just nominated for deletion). Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 25 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) 00:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Showcase Productions[edit]

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

Nothing exists in coverage. Clear failure of WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, samee ^talk 08:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn production company. Lacks sources & notability is not inherited from notable films. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 21 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! 10:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Careers In The Outdoors[edit]

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

Local event with no enduring notability. Fails WP:NEVENT. Störm (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no possible justification for keeping this. The creator of the page, Trident13, now indeffed, was not only a serial copyright violator (see the depressingly massive CCI) but also a long-term undeclared paid editor. Both of those dubious talents seem to have been brought to bear here. I've just removed a relatively brief copyright violation from the page, and presumptively removed all other text by Trident13 – which was all of it. The brief sentence I wrote in its place is based principally on its own 2010 website, which was the source of the copyvio. This is or was a non-notable promotional event by a non-notable job agency at (slightly more surprisingly) a non-notable trade fair. Zero hits on GNews (other than our own embarrassing page). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 22 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) 00:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way Of The Gun[edit]

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

Probably qualifies for A9, but to be on the safe side-- not notable album produced by producer of questionable notability (Sutter Kain ). In so far as I can tell, no artist on the thing has an article here as of yet. Article created with the edit summary, "‎ (created page for page per request of Sutter Kain the artist)". Does not meet any notability guideline you care to name. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sutter Kain. As the album is co-credited to Kain, A9 doesn't apply as we have an article on him. No coverage found, so I don't think we can have more than a redirect here. --Michig (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely leaving a redirect might pull people from The Way of the Gun In ictu oculi (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Album appears to be local and self-released with no evidence of being noticed enough to achieve notability. Also note the previous voter's point about the established The Way of the Gun. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:12, 25 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) 00:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CrystalPlayer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability with no sources since 2009 and no improvement since then. WP:BEFORE discloses numerous false positives (players for Crystal Palace football team) a bunch of download sites and message boards, and the like. One Google Books result is the only indication of any WP:RS and that isn't very significant. WP:NOTDIRECTORY or similar may also apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable program. Editor-1 (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article has not had any sources since 2009. Not notable in my view. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:17, 23 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) 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Hailey Owens[edit]

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

A tragic death indeed; however there is nothing extra to give it notability per WP:NEVENT, which says that most crimes/deaths are not notable even if widely reported. Mostly local news coverage. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Should be renamed to Murder of Hailey Owens (holding off in order to avoid messing up AfD), now that murderer has been convicted and sentenced to death. Most murders are not notable. This one is, per WP:NCRIME - As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources.. In this case - we have WP:SUSTAINED national-level media coverage (in addition to the copious Missouri and Kansas coverage). This was nationally covered in 2014, and against in 2017: e.g. [23] and in 2018: [24], [25]. We have WP:SUSTAINED, WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE WP:SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my news archive search shows WP:INDEPTH, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of multiple aspects of the case (demolition of house where murdered child was found; murderer's large cache of arms; murderer's large child porn collection; plus coverage of memorials, protests and park named in honor of murdered child, and of trial.) Coverage has been national and regional as well as local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that Hailey's Law is still an active bill in the Missouri legislature: 2 years later, family of Hailey Owens still waits,Harrison, Keegan. Springfield News Leader; Springfield, Mo. [Springfield, Mo]18 Feb 2016: A.4.... describes as "a bill that would speed up the Amber Alert system".E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact that there’s a “Hailey’s Law” being considered seems to be “extra” enough to assure notability. --GouramiWatcher^Talk 19:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, as per the arguments of Icewhiz, E.M.Gregory, and Gourami Watcher.--Aervanath (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High-profile killing of a child with news sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin: Please take into account the discussion at Talk:Death_of_Hailey_Owens#Requested_move_12_January_2018.--Aervanath (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhiz, E.M.Gregory, GouramiWatcher, Aervanath and Kind Tennis Fan. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:29, 24 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Train (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:44, 21 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! 10:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Court of Miracles[edit]

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

A popular Disney song that doesn't appear to have coverage. Coin945 (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yet another unnecessary AfD. At least worth a redirect to the film. --Michig (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that Coin created most of these articles he wants deleted now, too. Learning how and when to use redirect would be a good first step. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - viable search term without notability. Also, as the prior 2 editors mentioned, you can just WP:BOLDly redirect any article in good faith, especially ones where you created the article and have been the primary writer/maintainer. There's no real reason to think there'd be opposition to this, and if there was, then come here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because I created the article once upon a time, I didn't think that was reason enough to be Bold and redirect the article without a discussion. After creation, the article does not belong to me, but to the community.--Coin945 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentiment that "the published article belongs to the world, not you" is generally correct, but as stated, you may WP:BOLDly redirect any article if you are doing in in good-faith. You just need to stop and discuss as soon as someone disagrees/challenges/reverts you. The fact that you created it and were the primary contributor was just made as a comment of the unlikelihood of being challenged. For example, when you're dealing with an article that averages around 1 to 9 edits a year and averages about 2 to 9 page views a day, you may as well start with a bold redirect attempt, because its unlikely to face opposition. People hardly knew it existed in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 25 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 Grease (musical). Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There Are Worse Things I Could Do[edit]

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

A popular song from Grease, but no sources. Coin945 (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grease (musical). --Michig (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news shows substantial coverage of this well-known song, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy (Grease song)[edit]

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

A popular song but no sources. Coin945 (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you find an article that lacks sources, tag it it as unreferenced. It's not sufficient reason to bring it to AfD. This was a no. 2 hit in the UK for John Travolta and no doubt similarly successful in other countries, and I very much doubt that sufficient coverage doesn't exist. --Michig (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Curious about the results of WP:BEFORE. 19:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep, deleting "Sandy" from Grease? Lord have mercy. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article many years ago and was concerned that no sources had presented themselves since then. I thought it was due for a discussion. :) That said, I believe that the edits made by the amazing Michig have proven the song's independent notability.--Coin945 (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt this discussion, but I would suggest that you do WP:BEFORE before doing these AFDs, especially when you put up such bold claims as "no sources", which are easily disproven. I would advise that you take more time to research an article before putting it up for AfD to avoid this kind of situation in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and there are tags for noting insufficient sourcing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep #2 on UK singles charts is sufficient per WP:NSINGLE, with other sources. This definitely looks like a WP:BEFORE error. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the most iconic songs in Grease in 1978 and it stands the change of time of being considered a classic song today. I am surprise to see Sandy in AfD list. Here is one of the source stating where the song stand in the chart [26]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty School Dropout[edit]

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

A popular song from Grease. But no sources... Coin945 (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please explain why merging and or redirecting to an article on the musical or the soundtrack is not a preferable outcome to deletion. --Michig (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of sources for this such as this and coverage in The Oxford Handbook of The American Musical. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources above and Google News search, this well known song passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be an abundance of sources on HighBeam. HighBeam search brings up 309 results. A lot of those are probably duplicates, but still ... lots of sourcing on this song. — Maile (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Day More[edit]

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

A very popular song from Les Mis. But no reliable sources... Coin945 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is unreliable about these? [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. --Michig (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are reliable sources already in the article. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can't keep going on this page (110 articles up for deletion already today), because of things like this and "On My Own" below it. My sincerest thanks to those editors who don't mind coming to this page to save nominated pages like this. You are true Wikipedia heroes and heroines. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:04, 22 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On My Own (Les Misérables)[edit]

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

A very popular song from Les Mis. But no sources... Coin945 (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are sources in the article already. --Michig (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides the sources in the article already, there are others, such as extensive coverage in this book=. Rlendog (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable song from a notable topic. I hate coming to AfD, today alone people have put up 110 articles already. Every time I come here I find things like this. Delete "On My Own" from Les Mis? Do the regulars here have a check-and-balance on these pages, and if so, I applaud every one of you who protects the protectable articles put up here. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources in the article and identified above, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wicked (musical). Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No One Mourns the Wicked[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/No One Mourns the Wicked (2nd nomination)

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

A popular song from Wicked. But no sources... Coin945 (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicked (musical) per WP:ATD. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 21 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! 10:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Short Day[edit]

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

A popular song from Wicked. But no sources... Coin945 (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with nom, insufficient sources for even a stub. Waggie (talk) 23:57, 24 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) 12:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Putu Pager Wirajaya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:08, 21 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) 11:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFooty, the name sounds kinda fake also! Govvy (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:49, 27 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) 12:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arapenta Poerba[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Yogwi21 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:08, 21 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) 11:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. I did not see any source that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:47, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Master Crook's Crime Academy[edit]

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

A popular series that doesn't appear to have coverage. Coin945 (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:21, 21 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! 10:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filmwala Pictures[edit]

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

Company can't be notable with two or three films. Nothing significant in coverage exists. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the films produced by this company were highly-grossing. It would be unrealistic to expect a large number of films to be made given the revival phase of Pakistani cinema. Mar4d (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have so many places to give credit to them, e.g. Film industry in Pakistan. As they are business ventures so they need significant independent coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Filmwala Pictures has made very successful box office hits in Pakistan. The existing Wikipedia article on this company already has 6 references from major newspapers of Pakistan. It's a short article and can be turned into a stub article to be improved later. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nom, references are not intellectually independent and fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing either WP:RS (no journalist accredited), WP:ORGIND (based on company announcements and PR) and WP:CORPDEPTH (no in-depth coverage of the *company*). None of the references provided actually talk about the topic to hand - the company Filmwala Pictures. The references focus on the movies or the actors and some of the references don't even mention the company. If the movies are notable, they will no doubt have their own articles created. but notability isn't inherited and just because a product of the company may be notable does not mean that the company itseld it. To meet the criteria for establishing notability, there must be indepednent coverage of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was a little torn about this one, but ultimately I'm going to have to agree with the nom and HighKing. The sources are mostly interviews or are clearly based on company announcements, there doesn't appear to be any substantial amount of WP:ORGIND involved here. Truely, I suspect it's just WP:TOOSOON, and that in a couple years this production company will have a lot more to base an article on. I think it would be best to file this away, possibly to be restored later when the company has more comprehensive coverage available. Waggie (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a directory listing for an nn film production company. Notability is not inherited from notable films, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 26 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 Horrible Histories. J04n(talk page) 16:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Histories World[edit]

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

A piece of the Horrible Histories franchise that questionably doesn't have independent notability. Coin945 (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. Nominator is clearly on a spree, spending little time on each article. Given that we have a section on this in the Horrible Histories article, the worst case scenario should be a merge back there. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bad faith claim by Michig is unfortunate, but I forgive them. :D To clarify, the vast majority of these articles were actually created by me early in my history here at Wikipedia. Now I'm reassessing and thinking to myself "hmm... perhaps they actually don't deserve a place here". It's discussion time.--Coin945 (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could address the question why this should be deleted rather than at least merged and/or redirected to the section on the same topic in the Horrible Histories article? --Michig (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for intruding on this discussion, but speaking to Coin945, I think that you are completing missing Michig's point. Rather than just saying it as a "unfortunate" and saying that you "forgive them" (which I find somewhat condescending), it would have been better to answer the question directly about why you chose to open an AfD rather than either 1) redirect and/or merge the content yourself or 2) open a discussion on merging/redirecting on the article's talk page rather than opening a discussion for deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Aoba47. The Keep vote above doesnt really give any justification for the article being kept. It just accuses me of being on a spree. For that reason I addressed this assertion, which I did by explaining that these articles were created by me. This means that I hav done my due diligence at initial creation and over the years when trying to update them. Only now have I taken a step back and realised it's time to purge the Horrible Histories template, when realistically there are not enough sources to justify their inclusion.--Coin945 (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, and thank you for the response. It is always good to reflect on one's prior experiences on here; I have certainly grown a lot since I first joined here, and looking back at some of my earlier edits/work is a little cringe-inducing lol. Hope you are having a wonderful start to the new-ish year! Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 24 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Histories Battle Arena[edit]

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

A piece of the Horrible Histories franchise that questionably doesn't have independent notability. Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 21 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) 05:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kjartan Poskitt[edit]

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

Popular author of Murderous Maths. But there appear to be no substantial coverage in reliable sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. re. his TV career as mentioned in the article, he has 76 citations on BBC Genome: admittedly, some of those are for repeated programmes so I'm not sure how much that is considered to be worth here. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I !voted in favor of keeping Murderous Maths, and going by the coverage I found of that series, I believe Poskitt himself passes the WP:AUTHOR bar. His work in TV counts on top of that. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony De Saulles[edit]

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

Popular illustrator of Horrible Science. But there appear to be no substantial coverage in reliable sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not seem to be any critical coverage, just boilerplate bios for publishers and festivals and books he has done.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge/redirect to Horrible Science which itself has its own problems, so maybe just delete. No RS here. Just promo. --Theredproject (talk) 22:32, 25 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) 05:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Arnold (writer)[edit]

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

Popular author of Horrible Science. But there appear to be no substantial coverage in reliable sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR. There's adequate sourcing out there about awards the series has won and such. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR and there is already significant coverage in the article's references to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Horrible Histories. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Brown (artist)[edit]

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

Popular illustrator of Horrible Histories. But there appear to be no substantial coverage in reliable sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, for lack of sigcov. If someone could turn up two decent sources he would be OK to keep.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Horrible Histories, or if there's genuinely nothing sourceable to merge, redirect there. --Michig (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Horrible Histories The only independent, reliable source is the telegraph. An interview, a literary agent and his own publisher do not establish notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs)
delete or merge/redirect to Horrible Histories. No RS here. Just promo. --Theredproject (talk) 22:33, 25 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 Miss Universe 2016. if we have merged we must keep the history and put in a redirect for attribution Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Miss Universe 2016[edit]

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

Completely unnecessary article, everything of notice is covered on Miss Universe 2016. Simply fancruft. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to Miss Universe 2016 per WP:CFORK. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ but strong oppose to deletion. It isn't "simply fancruft" and may be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as the article has credible reliable citations (many of them from national newspapers). The article focuses on the event organization aspect of the event. But I agree it is preferable that the content be merged back to the main article.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. There's a lot more here than just fancruft and, if the article is not to be kept, we should be talking about a "merge and redirect" and not simply a "redirect". The on/off nature of the negotiations does seem encyclopedic, especially given the complications caused by Duterte's "kill the drug addicts like Hitler killed the Jews" comment. But even if we left out the silly stuff like the table of committee members, would merging the useful information make the target article too large? If so, then a separate article is justifiable under the provisions of WP:SPINOUT. I'll need to take a closer look at this before coming to a decision, but I'm posting here anyway in hopes of receiving some comments on this point. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect and merge~~ Just to clarify my stance. To add for a lack of better comparison. Organization aspects of big sporting events that the casual fan or viewer doesn't care (host selection and bidding, inspections, branding (provided this is presented in an objective non press-release tone) are covered in the FIFA World Cup, Olympics and the like. In my opinion, there is this POV I encounter in the past that content should be trimmed because the past editions had lack of content (just results and placings, and contestant lists) and the main article should be the same which I find ridiculous. Or they personally find pageants as something that does not belong to an encyclopedia and tolerates the results as a compromise. This is just my perception though. I'm not a fan of pageants in general myself but I recognize it as something that at least the Philippine media finds as something as significant in the national level to go over WP:ROUTINE coverage.

Back to the article in question itself. The role of Rodrigo Duterte (in allowing the event, and making remarks that nearly cost the host country's hosting rights), the drug war, and other content adds something to the Miss Universe 2016 article beyond merely tables and results which is a perennial issue for most pageant articles (since Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATS, context should be given). So merge is preferable.

Maybe this edition in particular satisfies WP:GNG while other editions may just rely on the fact that Miss Universe competition as a major pageant for their notability. Or they are just poorly sourced. Systemic bias may also at play here since the Philippines is one of the countries with a large pageant fanbase compared to the rest of the world.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cI am a member of WP:Beauty pageants, so by no means am I anti-pageant. My concern with this article was something you brought up. The Philippines are the most pageant happy nation in the world, and there is no doubt that many Filipinos like to edit about pageantry on Wikipedia. However, when Miss Universe 2016 was held in the Philippines many Filipinos began giving it undue weight and adding things that didn't belong in an article, purely because it was Philippines-related and they wanted to include it. That's what I interpreted this article as: unnecessary additions purely because Filipino fans are overly enthusiastic. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have this concern. What are precisely the things you find unnecessary? I may have been overenthusiastic myself. Most of the content other than the table were added by me (though I acknowledge that I don't own this or the parent article), my perception was most other users made some minor grammar fixes and engage in edit wars on the pageant contestants' hometowns and other trivial statistics. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Miss Universe 2016. I've taken a closer look at both articles. The "parent" article has an organization section that runs to about 200 words. And much of that duplicates what is here in the instant article. The only major points covered here (and not in the parent article) are (i) the detail about the near-cancellations, (ii) detail about the venues considered, but not chosen, for the ancillary events, and (iii) the table of members of the organizing committee. If we don't merge the table, and merge in a trimmed discussion of the ancillary venues, then the organization section of the parent article will clock in at between 500 and 600 words. That's not too large.
Between now and tomorrow, I'll take a stab at performing that merge. If it passes muster with everyone here, then perhaps we can turn to the question of whether we even need the redirect (because the instant article's title really isn't a plausible search term).
As before, comments on this approach will be welcome. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've done the merge, pretty much along the lines I outlined in my last posting. I didn't bring in anything from the Ancillary Venues discussion, because a lot of that was up-to-the-minutes reports of things that might happen at places that might be chosen. Of course, if any of these things actually did take place, then someone else can add that to the target article. But right now, I'm not seeing anything else in the instant article that can be usefully merged, so I'm changing my recommendation to "Delete". NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you for you work, NewYorkActuary. The article can be deleted now.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:30, 24 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Birmingham Stage Company[edit]

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

No sources. Coin945 (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There are plenty of sources available. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC) All these from The Stage for example. --Michig (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC) 806 exact title matches in Highbeam, 160 in the British Newspaper Archive. --Michig (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- review of Google books suggests that it's a notable stage company, sample:

Filming and Performing Renaissance History.

A long-running concerns; sources are available. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A lot of the Horrible Histories related articles need merging or redirecting and I notice that many of the articles from Template:Horrible Histories that are currently nominated for deletion were created by Coin945, who is also the nominator in these AfDs. I'd suggest Coin945 WP:BOLDly merges and redirects the verifiable content to a parent article instead. Kb.au (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at AFD should be merged without a consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple sources identified above by Michig passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jackie French bibliography. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Dinkum Histories[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Popular spinoff to Horrible Histories. But there appears to be no substantial coverage in reliable sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jackie French. Listing published works on a page about a author is pretty standard. --Michig (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the section in Jackie French bibliography. She clearly an exceptionally prolific author, so that exceptionally that article exists and is the appropriate target. Possibly merge some narrative from this article there. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:49, 22 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 Terry Deary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time Detectives[edit]

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

It's a popular Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And why wouldn't we merge this to Terry Deary where only the series is currently listed? --Michig (talk) 09:36, 21 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 Horrible Histories. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foul Football[edit]

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

It's a popular Murderous Maths spin-off (which itself is a spin-off to Horrible Histories). But strangely there appears to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Horrible Histories as it's part of that franchise. Giant Snowman 10:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BKCRIT, a plausible search term though so could be redirected if mentioned at Horrible Histories, though I can't see a mention at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per what GSnowman said, and maybe merge the content if it's needed. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 23 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 Horrible Histories. per similar listings Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten (book series)[edit]

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

It's a popular Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:10, 21 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 Horrible Histories. per similar discussion s Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truly Terrible Tales[edit]

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

It's a popular Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, why wouldn't we merge a popular spin-off to the author's article? --Michig (talk) 09:37, 21 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) 05:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murderous Maths[edit]

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

It's a very popular and commercially successful Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no reliable sources... save fro Popular Science Coin945 (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are lots of sources, not where you would expect to find them in References, but in the "Reviews" section. Some of them are even reliable and in-depth. But the whole thing is horribly promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I pruned a bunch of promotionalism and unreliable sources, but the remainder appears substantial. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been improved and has references to reliable sources reviews such as The Times Educational Supplement, Scientific American and others Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally (book series)[edit]

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

It's a very popular and commercially successful Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:01, 21 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) 05:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Spark Files[edit]

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

It's a popular Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no reliable sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:00, 21 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) 05:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Lives[edit]

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

It's a popular Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 21 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) 05:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What They Don't Tell You About...[edit]

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

It's a popular Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no reliable sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 21 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) 05:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Tales (book series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's a popular Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:57, 21 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 Terry Deary#Series. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Deary's Tales[edit]

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

It's a popular Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terry Deary. No reason not to list these there. --Michig (talk) 19:35, 21 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) 05:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly Famous[edit]

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

It's a popular Horrible Histories spin-off. But strangely there appears to be no sources... Coin945 (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:55, 21 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! 10:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ion storm (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The third entry in this DAB seems like WP:OR. It doesn't appear a dab page is necessary here as this can just be addressed by a hatnote. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a track on the album 666 International, but on the other hand, the science fiction aspect is a bit ORish and I could only locate one instance of "ion storms" in actual science articles,[32] and it's not even mentioned in the second entry's article. That leaves two entries, one clearly the primary topic, so WP:TWODABS applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 23 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) 05:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Dow Employees Credit Union[edit]

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

No indication this organization meets WP:CORP John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has depth of coverage in independent sources going back to 1954. This is one of the largest credit unions in Texas, and is also known for TDECU Stadium.--Bernie44 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- large credit union with naming rights to a stadium, I think its notable enough.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:51, 27 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! 10:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Root[edit]

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

Somewhat procedural nomination; an IP editor failed to nominate this correctly on the 19th. I think there's a WP:BIO1E case here for deletion. As the person died 18 months ago WP:BLP is not relevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete getting killed by a drunk drive, not a sign of notability. Having a proposed bill named after you, still not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Immigration reform in the United States, the information about the proposed legislation may be worth mentioning.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTMEMORIAL until it passes with her name like Brady Bill or Megan's Law. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:01, 24 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! 10:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kirkegaard[edit]

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

Non-notable, sources have no depth of coverage. The footnotes here, here, here and here are all about a controversial 'eugenics' conference secretly held at University College London. These sources mention Kirkegaard in passing (a few sentences), but certainly don't focus on him but on the organiser, James Thompson, the senior academic who organised the conference and is now being investigated. The other sources, here, here and here, are about Kirkegaard and a colleague publishing data about 70,000 users of the dating service OkCupid. These might, debatably, give a shade more notability. But the incident is already covered, IMO more fittingly, here, in our OkCupid article. I don't see that this person rises to notability. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has more notability as a pseudoscientist and perhaps the article can be updated if it mentions more about this; for example he set up three journals to publish his pseudoscientific research on race and intelligence and various known neo-Nazis and white supremacists either review submissions for the journals such as Kevin McDonald or submit papers to be published. MacDonald clearly has some notability. Alongside the Mankind Quarterly, Kirkegaard's journals are the most notable for scientific racists to publish.Storyfellow (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kirkegaard was featured in many British newspapers on the 10 and 11th of January where they exposed his controversial comments about supporting child rape. He appears to have gained widespread recognition for this a few days ago but only a few lines in each newspaper. This article contains a bit more information about Kirkegaard and his involvement in the eugenics conference, it is from the London Student newspaper [33]. I have seen this newspaper cited on Wikipedia so is it considered WP:RS ? Rebecca Bird (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About reliable sources: yes, the London student paper is probably reliable for this. But then I'm altogether not questioning the sources' reliability — clearly not, as they include The Guardian and The Telegraph — but the depth of coverage, see WP:BASIC. In my opinion, Kirkegaard hasn't received significant coverage. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Are you aware of WP:BLP1E? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes I am aware about it. But he is known for more than just the child rape controversy. There was the OkCupid controversy he was involved with as well. Rebecca Bird (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been featured for more than 1 event. OKCupid data release gathered worldwide attention, but I've also been featured in a Swiss newspaper (also negative tone), mentioned in a Norwegian newspaper, and wrote a reply to it (see here), and been mentioned for discussing blockchain technology for use in direct and fluid democracy. I've furthermore been interviewed for Danish television a while back in regards to a story on Wikileaks, though I can't right now find the clip. Deleet (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the reasons given by nom: none of the sources establish his notability, they just mention him in passing. —Ashley Y 07:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - the London conference is the only coverage of real notability, and that'd be WP:BLP1E - and that conference is only notable because of the Toby Young link. But I don't think there's anywhere near enough to mention Kirkegaard in the Young article. Don't think he yet clears the bar for pseudoscience coverage. But he may well do in future - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Best to delete for now and wait if he gets anymore media coverage for anything else in the future then it may be recreated possibly. There has been talk elsewhere about creating a section on the recent eugenics conference on the History of University College London article. Kirkegaard could be mentioned there for now. Rebecca Bird (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE —Ashley Y 03:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed with the comments above. At the moment, he seems to clearly fail WP:BIO, with a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of the man himself. This is a BLP1E at best, and the relevant content is already in the Toby Young article. Robofish (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E etc. Collect (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More in-depth coverage in reliable high quality sources required to justify a stand alone bio article. Right now WP:BLP1E is not enough. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This reminds me of the rubbish spewed by the SPLC in their fear mongering campaigns, totally ignoring size and impact and real following of extremists, or the fact that some of these extremist groups exist more because of intelligence service operatives on the mailing lists than genuine members, and the latter exist because the SPLC claims there needs to be monitoring, in a highly questionable, self-feeding scheme that mainly serves to continue to increse the non-cause beneficial ever aggressive fundraising by the SPLC. Wikipedia needs to stop acting as an auxiliar to the SPLC fundraising scam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What an utterly idiotic set of statements, John Pack Lambert. I think reading all that far-right shit is seriously impeding your mental functions. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, please be civil and assume good faith. —Ashley Y 04:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creation of Emil Kirkegaard's Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the Southern Poverty Law Center or a fundraising scam. They did not create his article, and as far as I know they have not even covered him on there website (yet), so the SPLC claims are nonsense. Rebecca Bird (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by the subject above, he's received a thorough profile in Le Temps, a quality national Swiss newspaper, in April 2017, before this notorious conference was reported on. Together with the coverage related to that I think GNG is met and BLP1E is no longer an issue. Unclear how any of this might relate to the American SPLC as argued above. Sandstein 21:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for discussion of Sandstein's sourcing, which came late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, the Le Temps coverage means Kirkegaard has one substantial article in a reliable source, and the set of passing mentions in the possibly-BLP1E event. That brings him near the threshold, but given the substantial delete consensus that the "BLP1E" sources did not add up to notability, I'm not convinced that adding one good source really brings him over the line just yet. If The Guardian or The Independent (say) had covered him in more detail, then the outcome would be different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Deleet (Emil Kirkegaard). His activities are not particularly notable. That started with the pirate party in Denmark, with open source issues and mostly with controversies concerning immigration, which involved self-published articles on openpsych.net, along with a few peer-reviewed articles. A number of far-right personalities were involved with openpsych.net; nowadays the terminology in vogue might be alt-right. Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All papers in Mankind Quarterly and OpenPsych are peer-reviewed, so that claim about just self-publishing (MQ papers are not self-published) or non-reviewed is not true. I have a few articles in review at conventional journals as well expected to be published this year, mainly just to counter these sorts of claims. (Not that it directly matters to the deletion question, just noting the inaccuracies.) Deleet (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "Peer" taken by both is so narrow that it becomes useless. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable under GN or ACADEMIC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think Sandstein's source helps, but does not entirely solve the problems that the nom and many others point out. There just isn't enough solid coverage here to make it. Waggie (talk) 00:13, 25 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 deleted at authors request. Amortias (T)(C) 20:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss International Airlines Flight 40[edit]

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

Non-notable incident WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS (and non-policy essay WP:AIRCRASH) Wikipedia is not a newspaper or repository for articles on every bump and scrape in aviation. Barely even rates a mention in aircraft, airline or engine articles!!!!!! Petebutt (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even have a bump or scrape; just landed in a really cold place and the only thing harmed were travel itineraries. Nate • (chatter) 02:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I have been away this weekend and haven't been able to work on this to the degree I would like to (By the way, thanks for taking the time to notify me as the article creator about this AfD). But based on what I was able to finish so far, I could understand why you might nominate it for deletion (though of course, I was never so hasty as a reviewer myself).
I agree that purely from an aviation standpoint, this isn't notable ... as has been noted before, there are many diversions every day; we don't have articles about each and every little one.
But ... what I see as notable here is the aftermath. It's not every day that an airline and engine manufacturer decide that something like this merits not just repairing the engine but replacing it entirely. That obviously has to be done in situ as you can't just tow an airliner somewhere. And in this case in situ was an airport in the remote reaches of the Canadian North, in the middle of winter, under severe constraints. There were no hangars big enough to accommodate the 777, and so they had to build a tent around the engine to warm the air around it up to about 10 °C (50 °F) in order to replace it. In a week, they managed to get the plane back into service.
So, I would argue that it's not notable so much as an aviation incident but as an engineering and maintenance accomplishment. Certainly the Popular Mechanics article used as a source seems to suggest as much, and there's another article from Aviation Week which I can't see most of since it's paywalled but appears to make the same point from what I can see of it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added a ((db-g7)) template to the page and requested deletion since from the additional delete !votes I do not think my arguments are likely to prevail. So let's not further waste what appears to be everyone's very valuable time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above.--IndyNotes (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A story made to appear marginally interesting does not make it notable. Boeing has exact protocols for this scenario, and, even if you want to claim this is rare, rarity alone has never been assumed as notable. All we have here is a news story about a routine procedure completed in cold weather.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this is particularly noteworthy for a a stand-alone article or even a mention on the Boeing 777, engine shutdowns are not the uncommon. MilborneOne (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One engine on an airliner failed, so it landed and the engine was replaced. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS (and the essay WP:AIRCRASH). In reply to the article's creator, "It's not everyday that X happens" is not a basis for having an article about X. Lots of nonnotable stuff happens on an occasional basis.Edison (talk) 00:56, 22 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 Hopelessly Tainted by SPA and Canvassed votes. Lesson 1 don't canvass editors as it simply makes the process of weighting votes impossible. No objection to immediate renomination to get a clean discussion going. I will block anyone who canvasses a fresh nomination. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Claybourn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see enough evidence of notability here. Legal work is not notable. Book on Lincoln is not yet published. Citations mostly appear to be articles by the subject, or in one case a non-reliable source, the three-sentence Hewitt post. Was AfDed in 2005, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Claybourn, and decision was delete. Not sure whether it was in fact deleted and reinstated later. Tacyarg (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The events in 2016 as a delegate justify notability (and occurred after the 2005 discussion), in addition to recent publication contract with a major university press.--IndyNotes (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the events of 2016 are not enough to establish notability. Being a delegate to a party convention is not grounds for notability, resigning as a delegate for a party convention, is even less a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment IndyNotes notified around 30 users who had nothing to do with editing or working on this article or the previous AfD (from thirteen years ago) of this nom; I don't know if this is a WP:CANVASS or a bot gone wrong or what it is; please explain IndyNotes. Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain on your talk page. At some point you had commented and/or edited an article relating to the "Never Trump" movement and thus I thought you might be able to add input to the discussion. My apologies if I was in error.--IndyNotes (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. I agree with John Pack Lambert that being a delegate to a party convention is not grounds for notability, but I think that resigning as a delegate for a party convention can be, depending on the circumstances. Resigning due to illness or a some low-level personal scandal, for example would obviously not cut it. Resigning in public protest of the nominee of your party, I would say, is a far more likely indicator of notability. bd2412 T 05:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~, as for bd2412, because of resigning in protest over Biff. Also note that I'm unimpressed by the obvious CANVASSing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being summoned here by a template that is meant to be used for the article creator.^diff This subject is vaguely of interest to me and the article creator is anonymous. I am inclined to recommend it being kept, because there are sources, and the political aspect of this subject is minor and not the main claim for significance. But I won't put this in bold because of the WP:CANVASS policy. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notified some editors who had voted on other AfD discussions for political or author-related articles per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. I tried to get an even split of people who had voted for both deleting and keeping articles. --IndyNotes (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure why I was notified, but this clearly looks like a vanity page on a not-really-notable individual. john k (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think his historical work is sufficient to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Aside from Mr. Claybourn's published work, status as a Delegate, and his other notable characteristics, Josh was a key figure in the early Blogosphere. His main weblog was one of the most influential, read, and commented at, and he was also a major contributor to other weblogs. He had a major role in the Blogosphere, almost from its beginning. He has since achieved success, in many other ways. Pacificus (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of date for his blog? He's described here as "the next generation of bloggers" and I can't see him as an early blogger - he'd have to have started whilst still at school. Also the ref given for this is a trivial one para mention of five bloggers, with no description of each. Also the blog linked there is dead, now some sort of Thai spam page. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andy Dingley's implication that the blogging background is a relatively weak basis for this article. However, it's a supportive data point for other more significant justifications.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, you've swayed me. In which case, delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article's deficiency lies with its weak introduction. That needs to be fleshed out more. The authorship history is of minor significance but when taken together with the notable and high profile resignation as a delegate (covered extensively in the New York Times and CNN, among others), it makes this an easy determination.--YHoshua (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: apologies if this is not in line with protocol, but YHoshua, do you have a conflict of interest? Your talk page says you run the website for the Claybourn family, and that link says that the site is run by Joshua Claybourn, who is the subject of this article. Tacyarg (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was not able to locate sufficient secondary biographical sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In relation to the issue of the significance of his resignation as a delegate to the Republican National Convention, it would probably be helpful to keep in mind that the reason that he gave for doing so (and this is also why it was national news) was that he could not in good conscience cast a vote for Donald Trump. Opposition to Trump within the GOP even once he had secured the 2016 Republican nomination was a significant aspect of the 2016 United States presidential campaign, and so were the causes of that opposition to the person who now, as you know, has become the President of the United States. Joshua Claybourn's resignation as a delegate was important enough either as evidence of that opposition or as a symbol of it that major national news outlets in the U.S. reported it. If the article needs more citations in order to adequately demonstrate this, I can provide them, though I did not think that they were difficult to find. It is probably also worth mentioning that my search (using Google) turned up articles not just from major U.S. news outlets but also from a couple of foreign ones. Since my familiarity with foreign news publications printed in foreign languages is limited, I looked them up here on Wikipedia to get a sense of whether these two are credible, well-established publications, and my impression was that they are. For anyone who wants to double-check, the publications are the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and FOCUS. Both of the publications are German (and printed in the German language), and both mention Claybourn's resignation as a delegate and include a quote from him (though the quote has been translated into German). As far as I know, Wikipedia does not have a hard rule on this point, but I think that the fact that two German news outlets thought his resignation significant enough to report at all in Germany (and to quote him) is useful as at least a rough indicator of significance. I would not normally expect a major German newspaper and a major German news magazine to take notice of what some American did while present in the United States unless they, in their judgment as secondary sources, considered what he did to be noteworthy and thought that their readers might actually care about it. I do not mean to suggest that his resignation was the story of the year, but while I do not think this coverage of it would justify a new Joshua Claybourn article on the German-language (or "Deutsch") Wikipedia, it does justify keeping this article on the English-language Wikipedia. Duodecimus (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had just the same opinion myself - "I could not in good conscience cast a vote for Donald Trump". It's not an unusual opinion. Now, here's the nub - was his role as a delegate to this conference sufficient for that opinion to be notable? Now I think a senatorial candidate taking that line would have been; I know no-one gives a damn what I think of Trump, but where does a conference delegate stand between those two points? Are they even a delegate in a strict sense? (this term gets stretched every which way). Is such a conference 'delegate' expected to represent a mandate they've already been given (a literal delegate, although it's rarely used that way) or were they there instead as a representative, and expected instead to use their own best judgement? The first of these, and being unable to do so from conscience, is a much stronger statement of disagreement than that of a representative who has already been told to make their own choice. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that he would have been required to cast his vote for Trump on the first ballot at the convention, and if a nominee had not been successfully chosen on the first ballot, he might have been able to use his own judgment on a second or any subsequent ballot. That was my impression from reading about it at the time, but I think that at least one of the articles that I looked at last night also said that. I'll try to find one (maybe a few) and link to it here. It would make sense that a delegate would be bound in casting the first ballot, though, because now-President Trump did win the Indiana Republican primary in May 2016 (I am from Indiana, so I remember that vividly, though as infrequently as I can manage), and that primary would not have served any obvious purpose if delegates for the state were not obligated to vote for its winner on at least the first ballot at the convention. I'll Google up a source or two now, though, since those ought to have more weight than my own reasoning and my own memory of things. Duodecimus (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may be better articles than this (ones that more directly state that Claybourn would have been required to vote for Trump on the first ballot and that the possibility of a second ballot had been eliminated due to the number of delegates Trump had managed to win in the primaries up to that point), but here are three of them: First, one from the New Yorker, one from the Daily Caller, and one from the Indianapolis Star. Duodecimus (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Indianapolis Star article is a different one than the one to which I linked before. This one does not actually mention Claybourn, but it does provide additional information about in what sense of the word "delegate" he was to be a delegate to the Republican National Convention (before his resignation of that position). It may be helpful in settling the question of what the position that Joshua Claybourn resigned actually was and why his unwillingness to cast a vote for Mr. Trump made it necessary for him to resign that position. That is important to know in order to understand why his resignation drew the attention of national and even international news organizations. Duodecimus (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clayborn made national news for his decision regarding being a delegate. Additionally, its only cited in passing, but he has been a writer for Howey Politics one of the largest non-partisan political website in Indiana. Iufoltzie (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notified some editors who had voted on other AfD discussions for political or author-related articles per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. I tried to get an even split of people who had voted for both deleting and keeping articles. --IndyNotes (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DevOps transformation[edit]

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

This is a needless content fork of DevOps. Several previous versions appear to have been deleted for copyright reasons or promotional content, and what we're left with now is something that reads like an ad, just not an ad for anything in particular. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a term used primarily in marketing copy. There's no encyclopedic content here either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence in the literature that there is a particular concept of 'DevOps transformation' independent of marketing hype for 'lets try a new approach'. Since the concept of DevOps culture change is already in DevOps#Cultural_change, this article is both not notable and redundant with the DevOps article. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not appear independent of the subject. Dolescum (talk) 23:53, 26 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. arguments of inherent notability are weak when this isn't clear cut and are argued instead of finding sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe B. Jackson[edit]

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

Cannot see evidence that this mayor is notable. Have found and added one additional source but this does not make significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A mayor of a city with more than 100,000 residents is certainly notable.--IndyNotes (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Murphressboro was at 68,000 people in 2000, and 44,000 in 1990 in the middle of his term as mayor. Beyond this, we need significant indepth coverage to show a mayor is notable, which is lacking here. Lastly, Murphressboro is a periferale city within the Nashville Metro Area, not a key regional power city. My own city has over 100,000 inhabi9tants, yet we deleted the biography of our previous mayor, and I was a supporter of the deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that growth is directly attributable to the mayor. I agree that more in-depth discussion would be useful and valuable, however.--IndyNotes (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears he is the city’s longest serving mayor, was on the board of the National League of Cities (a notable and influential organization), and the population doubled during his tenure. Additionally, a major thoroughfare was name after him. This isn’t some throw away mayor; it meets the qualifications for notability.--IndyNotes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a clearly notable mayor.--YHoshua (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. The population of a city is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough significant reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2 — but the only sources here are a (deadlinked) profile on the website of the local genealogy society (which is not a reliable or notability-assisting source), a glancing namecheck of his existence in the congressional record (which is not a notability-assisting source), and a single obituary. And no, having had a street named after him in the city is not a notability claim for a mayor, either — if that were all it took, we would have to keep articles about at least 75 per cent of everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere, because naming new streets or public buildings after former mayors is just a commonplace and run of the mill thing that towns and cities everywhere quite regularly do. If he could be sourced significantly better than this, then it wouldn't matter what population the city has or had — but the city's population does not in and of itself exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the article could be better, but the question here is notability, not article quality. Because of the significance of his city and the length of his tenure, Jackson is clearly notable. I hope editors will channel their energy into improving the article rather than trying to delete it.Kiernanmc (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the size of the city nor the length of his tenure ever exempts any mayor from having to be sourced better than this. Notability only extends to mayors who are properly sourced as the subject of enough significant reliable source coverage to clear NPOL #2, and a mayor whose article is not already at that level is not kept on a "maybe somebody might be able to fix this someday" basis — enough quality sourcing to get this kept has to be shown to definitely exist (preferably by actually adding it to the article, but at the very least by showing hard data from a real search for better sources in this discussion), not just presumed to probably exist, before we can keep an article about a mayor. So if you want this kept, you have to do the work needed to make it keepable — complaining about what other editors are or aren't channelling their energy into is not a keep criterion. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 27 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) 05:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altor BioScience[edit]

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

No evidence of notability : no approved products. The usual PR, and articles about the general sort of chemicals proposed. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete i agree that this fundamentally fails N; i tried to salvage this but it really doesn't cross the bar. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 27 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. can someone confirm on my talk page which of the other list mentioned need deleting and I'll do the honours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beninese Grammy Award winners and nominees[edit]

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

It seems odd to have a list article with a single entry. Further, given that there's only one person on this list, I suspect that there are no sources to support the notability, such as would satisfy WP:LISTN, of the compiling of all Beninese winners and nominees of Grammy Awards into a list. Largoplazo (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, but the manual of style section on lists does not expressly state that a stand-alone list page must contain more than one list item. However, the discussion references terms in plural so perhaps the authors' assumed that a list must contain multiple items. (Alternatively, perhaps we could also have lists with zero items?) The list layout basics start with: "Do not use a list if a passage is understood easily as regular text." The list could be replaced with a statement in the Angelique Kidjo article that she is the only Beninese Grammy Award nominee or winner. Accordingly delete. --Rpclod (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilities abound. List of U. S. presidents from Hope, Arkansas. List of Polish popes. List of Antarctic wineries. Largoplazo (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. List of Polish popes exists (as a redirect to List of popes by country, though). Largoplazo (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And nominate all the other "List of [insert country here] Grammy Award winners for deletion as well. Pointless and lacks references from third-party sources. Erick (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as stated by Rpclod. I also concur with Magiciandude (Erick) that there are a large number of similar lists created by the same user that should also be deleted for the same reasons. Dan arndt (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenian Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Azerbaijani Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Bulgarian Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Guatemalan Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Hungarian Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Iranian Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Irish Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Lebanese Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Lithuanian Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Malian Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Mongolian Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of New Zealand Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Nigerian Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Panamanian Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Peruvian Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Sri Lankan Grammy Award winners and nominees

List of Taiwanese Grammy Award winners and nominees

Also List of Spanish Grammy Award winners and nominees and others. There are many more under Template:Grammy Award years, a navigation template whose content was mostly consistent with its name until the creator of the article we're discussing added a long list of countries to it so that now its name is misleading. Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I hadn't even noticed that your list was just of lists with one person on them. I thought you were trying to list all of them, taking into account the WP:LISTN rationale. Largoplazo (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - Check, List of Urdu songs recorded by Kumar Sanu, a songs' list with only one entry and having no reference was kept for several years. And also there is several articles who have very less entries and that articles are kept. List of Argentine Nobel laureates, List of Pakistani Nobel laureates and List of Korean Nobel laureates, just 5, 2 and 1 entries respectively. I think you should delete these articles first. If these articles can stand why shouldn't this one? You cant say it has not reference or notability. Totally biased and pointless decision by some people I think, If there are lists about List of Brazilian, Argentine, Indian olympic medalists, oscar winners with just 2-10 entries, I think this article should also stand. Thank you. মাখামাখি (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I've improved this article by adding two more nominations, this article has now 6 entries, 2 wins and 4 nominations in multiple (2) categories. This is all for Beninese singers, I cannot Give Grammy to any artist to add up to his country's tally, just List of Korean Nobel laureates has just 1 entry (!!!). You can say these articles as short, but not unimportant or pointless মাখামাখি (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) My point is that this list contains one item, so there's nothing to be achieved by pointing out the existence of lists that have 2+ items and are, therefore, nontrivially lists. (2) Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There have been times I've submitted articles for deletion after someone has brought them to my attention to justify a new article with flaws that it shared with them. (3) Please enlighten me as to the nature of this bias you are accusing me of (bias has to be about something) and then prepare to defend your accusation (including why you think I can't possibly really have begun this discussion for the reason I gave) and your violation of WP:Assume good faith. Largoplazo (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mention List of Urdu songs recorded by Kumar Sanu three days after it was deleted. Just so: Sometimes articles do remain here a long time before someone notices that they merit deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unnecessary intersection as opposed to Olympians where nationality is one reason there is an Olympics at all. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:09, 23 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. Additional coverage/sources added during the discussion are sufficient. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Strimpel[edit]

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

Not sure this journalist and author has evidence of notability. Apart from the Jewish Chronicle interview, I can't find coverage about her, just by her. Article was PRODed in 2015 and contested. Tacyarg (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepdent source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the primary author of this article. I added citations of two interviews with Zoe Strimpel published in The London Times and The Evening Standard. I also added three reviews of her books that were published in Cosmopolitan, Glamour, and The Guardian. Rgonsalv (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I added five additional citations of press coverage of Zoe Strimpel's work. Rgonsalv (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage of her work to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional sourced added meets [[WP:AUTHOR]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as substantial reliable sources coverage has been identified such as The Guardian, London Times, Evening Standard and others, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Jain[edit]

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

An advertorially toned BLP for an unremarkable entrepreneur. Affiliated with a nn entity the article on which has been deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kairos Society. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is WP:SPIP, interviews, passing mentions, and other self-promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are just press release stuff. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete company VPs are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 21 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! 10:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Stirrat[edit]

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

This article is completely original research. It should not exist in Wikipedia. There is no independent ref provided for the central claims being made that this person didn't write the song, and almost every ref is used argumentatively. It is somewhat shocking that this page exists. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and possibly start over~~Merge with Unchained Melody Except for the fact that article is indeed an essay, I am unsure if article subject meets notability guidelines. If he does, then it would be better to revert to a previous acceptable version or to simply delete it and start from scratch (i.e. WP:TNT) since there is no significant content except for the rant. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all past versions of the article do not give any information about subject except for trivial mention "was an electrical engineer". Details about the controversy can be added to the main article in a short paragraph or two, without being as bad of a rant as it is now. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unchained Melody. The man is notable for one event only, doesn't deserve an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do something~~. Changed to delete see discussion below. Interesting case. As it stands the article is hopelessly OR and it won't do at all. The most significant references were dead for me so here they are resurrected:"Writer forever linked to ‘Unchained Melody’" and "Frank Music v. Compuserve". However, Zaret died in July 2007 and many obituaries were published at that time (e.g. Zaret was songwriter) which say that the copyright claim was completely resolved in his favour and against Stirrat. The article cites none of these reports - indeed it was essentially written before July 2007 and has only received mindless editing since April 2007. So I think editorially this only deserves a passing mention in Unchained Melody, if even that. So delete, selective merge or, conceivably, keep with an utterly complete rewrite, would all be OK by me. Thincat (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the closest I've found to a RS. [34] isn't a source, but the author has an interesting opinion of Wikipedia's role in the whole thing. –dlthewave ☎ 21:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence to Unchained Melody based on the NY Daily News and Post Telegraph refs. We can just delete this essay. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'll now go for delete (see above) to get rid of the highly unsatisfactory material in this article but I wouldn't fault someone subsequently coming along with a redirect. Thincat (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this wasn't notable as a hoax; mentions of the legal battles in Zaret's obituary doesn't make it encyclopedic. I don't think a redirect is appropriate; I'm not sure this William Stirrat is more notable than the person in [35]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Unchained Melody There are enough sources about the hoax -- including this source from The Washington Post, this one from The New York Times and this one from Fox News, all obituaries of the real Hy Zaret from 2007 - but not enough to merit a standalone article for the hoaxer William Stirrat. A merge allows a trimmed-down version to be reflected in the article about the song, which already includes a brief mention of the hoax. Alansohn (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a nn grifter. Merging this content to Unchained Melody or redirecting would be WP:UNDUE and would not improve the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 26 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.