The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azomite[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTADVERTISING. This is a trademarked product name. The company does not meet notability requirements per WP:CORP ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Product placement; no independent coverage or indication of notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Product placement, zero geological notability, and (as far as I can tell) very little to zero agricultural notability. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Search results are dominated by commercial sites trying to sell Azomite and forums chatting about whether it's good or bad. Haven't found a convincing neutral RS. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete repeated calls for improvement and secondary sourcing to this article have left us with 1)a press release from a radio broadcast 2)a passing mention in a book about esoteric agriculture and 3)a link to a business registration site. To cap that the copy paste work from the history section of their company’s website is still there and is now cited to two occult authors who wrote books about pyramids and plants that chat with one and other. (If they’re the same ones I googled) Edaham (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete product placement. -- -The one, the only, Editor760 (talk) 18:34, 30 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, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd D. Culbertson Jr.[edit]

Floyd D. Culbertson Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is a lot of detail here, but I'm struggling to see how being the mayor of a small Louisiana town for two years renders him notable. Marquardtika (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being the mayor of a city with less than 7,000 people (that was Minden's population at the time) is not enough to make one notable, no other claims to notability exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, an unencyclopaedic mass of trivia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note: this page is by banned serial copyright-violator Billy Hathorn (depressingly massive CCI, SPI). If it is not deleted, all running text added by Hathorn will need to be presumptively removed. On the face of it, it looks as if much of this was taken more or less verbatim from an obituary notice. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 15:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mayors of small towns are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist, but the sourcing here isn't cutting it for getting him over WP:GNG. Far too many of them are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, or references in which Culbertson wasn't the subject of the reference but merely had his existence namechecked, or footnotes which just go "Newspaper, Date" without actually specifying the title of the specific piece of content that's being referred to. And given that the creator has been banned for serial copyvio (700 known copyvios?!?), we have to presume that the same applies here in the absence of evidence to the contrary, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator's comment: there are a bunch more similar articles (way too detailed copyright-violating local history pieces by Billy Hathorn), many of which I've just nominated for deletion (found them at Template:Revised Minden, Louisiana Mayors, a template which should also be deleted). Marquardtika (talk) 19:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrow (album)[edit]

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

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

Many of the article's sources have dubious reliability at best. This article concerns an album made by a music project whose article, in turn, was deleted after an AfD discussion in February & March 2016. The album was released by a label that does not meet notability guidelines as well. I, the person who created the article back in November 2008, allow for the possibility of deletion. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:16, 26 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) 21:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator/author. The note you left on the article's talk page 9 years ago is cute. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Thanks for pointing my past message out; reading that gave me a good chuckle. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- since the artist has been deleted as non-notable, per WP rules there is no reason to keep the album article. The existence of the album (and Quodia itself) can be discussed at the articles for Trey Gunn and Joe Mendelson. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing that out. In my initial skim through, I had misread it as being an album by Trey Gunn, due to its awkward wording/order of listing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per the deletion of the band's article, Quodia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 31 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Brandi Wells[edit]

Disappearance of Brandi Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not news, nor is it a database for missing persons. The majority of the sources are, in fact, databases themselves. Disappearances can be somewhat tricky because they sometimes generate local coverage on anniversaries. However, it would be difficult to argue this coverage isn't routine in nature. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:39, 26 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) 21:18, 26 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) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing distinguishes this disappearance from all the others. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CRIME, which states "The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged." An event of 12 years ago is hardly "news". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cullen328 - WP:CRIME states "The victim ... consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." Whatever you're quoting doesn't come from WP:CRIME, maybe WP:NCRIME which is a different guideline altogether? And the thing you've quoted isn't a statement of notability, it's a statement telling you that articles on this topic fall under the guideline of WP:CRIME if they meet the set circumstances (i.e the police are treating it like a crime). A disappearance is not a criminal act in itself, hence it doesn't always fall under the guideline of WP:CRIME. That's why this statement exists. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I left out an "N", Mr rnddude, and the quote above appears at WP:NCRIME, which is a shortcut to the relevant section of Wikipedia:Notability (events). This is not a biography per se. It is an article about a disappearance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so is this a procedural keep, Cullen328, because the nominating rationale doesn't address the relevant notability guideline? because you're statement still doesn't actually assert notability of any form, it only states that you're looking at the relevant guideline. This might be a valid argument though, but, I'd need some evidence of "not routine coverage" in accordance with the guideline you're quoting. I'm working on that right now, hence my lack of a statement here so far. Sorry we're chatting on two different pages, so I'll ping you here Cullen328. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As this article shows, there is still in depth coverage of the disappearance 11 years later, which is an indication that this topic meets the "duration of coverage" part of the guideline. The coverage being tied to the anniversary is not relevant. Newspapers use hooks just like we do with "Did you know" on the main page - so what? The fact that reliable media outlets are covering the disappearance 10 and 11 years later shows that it is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you've drawn that conclusion. I only found local media outlets that are still covering this, and that's true for many non-notable crimes. Longview is where she disappeared, and KETK-TV (the source you link) covers news in the Jacksonville-Tyler-Longview area. With a combined population of about 200,000 (out of 28 million) this news isn't even statewide. It's not convincing for me. Thanks for your time though. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CRIME and references seems good as well. BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Delete - The most relevant portion of WP:NCRIME is: 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. The important phrases here are (1)"high-profile", (2)"coverage [that] meets the above (WP:ROUTINE and WP:SENSATIONALISM) guidelines, and (3)reliable sources. I've been doing a search for news coverage on the web and also just a general google search. I've found this piece of local coverage returning to the event 11 years later (May 12th, 2017), a similar local coverage piece (Sept 15, 2017), and this last 10 year anniversary piece which is also local coverage (Aug 2, 2016). The only other things I've found are reddit posts and blogs. I don't know how reliable this is but this statement gives me pause: According to the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, 90,000 people are missing at any given time in this country. There are currently 2,000 missing persons cases in Texas, half of which are still active. This article deals with a drop in the proverbial bucket. I can definitively say that there is no chance that this meets criterion 1 set out above. This leads to criterion 2 and 3 together. There is a dearth of reliable sources for this article, it's mostly databases and a couple pieces of local news. I don't consider these to be "routine" per say given that they are revisiting events a decade on, but, it's not sufficient to pull me to the position of keep. We could pack the encyclopeadia full of these kinds of articles. Some are encyclopedic, and some are not. This one, in my estimation, falls under the category of "is not". Mr rnddude (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an unsolved possible crime which hasn't attracted anything but the expected local interest. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well sourced and just as notable as other articles, people are now way too picky of what should be included. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a tragic event, but ultimately a routine disappearance and an example of the Missing white woman syndrome. Coverage is local / routine. No lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sourced to missing person DB and local reporting. My BEFORE doesn't show anything beyond local reporting. I'm amenable to changing my !vote if someone brings up national coverage. Note that procedurally the nomination is incorrect, as the disappearance of people is not a routine NOTNEWS event. I'm !voting as I am since this doesn't meet WP:NCRIME or WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NCRIME. A news archive search shows local coverage, continuing with occassional stories for years after the event, but it does not seem to have drawn attention beyond the local papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Geick[edit]

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

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

Dylan Geick does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for an article. I'm moving that it be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.168.196 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: Creating AfD for IP user who can't do so themselves. SkyWarrior 20:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 20:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 20:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 20:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)][reply]

• keep - He is well known in the LGBT community, and he have achieved a lot in wrestling. fred8695 (talk) 20:17 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• keep - He has received a large amount of national coverage and is well documented social media presence. He is one of the first competitive high school wrestlers to have come out and a two time all American. he is widely present on social media alone and with his partner Jackson Krecioch.. Williamsdoritios (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC) 20:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - Looks like a 1E issue, and/or a case of WP:TOOSOON. I do not do much with WP:SPORTS notability so I am not fully certain. The only real coverage he does have is of him coming out, which is what I mean by 1E. _{Adotchar| reply here} 01:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is not enough coverage from reliable sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:1E, IMO. Subject will probably be notable at some point, but I don't feel like they are right now - if they had been involved in a touch more activism, this'd be a keep !vote; I feel that being prominently gay in a heteronormative environment is skirting notability. This article and the potential for an AfD was mentioned on IRC a few days ago, and the AfD was mentioned again today. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 01:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Hunky wrestler comes out, attracts press, but really, way WP:TOOSOON. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete As noted above, WP:TOOSOON appears directly applicable here. Link in article to Grant Mower appears to share same issue, so considering AfD there as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Deja vu Draft:Dylan Geick. Looks like the draft was deleted twice and protected. I have no idea if the current article is substantially different. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I understand the too soon argument and it seems to hold some credence. Alfie I will try to add some activistism links perhaps this might change your mind? If this article has to be deleted for the time being so be it. I appreciate all of your work to keep this encyclopedia on point. I just want to point out that this nomination was made in proxy for an isp user who had no previous edits except for trying to blank the page and declaring that they were going to remove it. They actually wrote "Dylan Geick does not fulfill the notability requirement for a Wikipedia article. I've elected to delete the content thereof since it has no reason being on here" and then blanked the page which was in turn restored by skywarrior Williamsdoritios (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Williamsdoritos:. Don't take this AfD personally. The nominator isn't what I'd call a model Wikipedian, but the nomination was made. Attacking the nominator won't help. Also, the "too soon argument" isn't an argument. We are not here to argue and defend sides, we're here to achieve consensus as to what is best for this article. Happy editing! _{Adotchar| reply here} 17:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Williamsdoritos:, @Adotchar: was kind enough to inform me of your comment off-wiki. To get my attentionn future you can use the ((reply to)) template, as follows: ((reply to|Alfiepates)). Anyway, regarding the AfD: Valid AfD nominations can be made regardless of the editor's standing. The best thing to do here is to attempt to rectify the issues highlighed in the Delete !votes (see WP:!VOTE for an explanation of the "!vote" terminology) - if you're able to do that, then there's a significant chance your article won't be deleted. If you're unable to do that, then you've discovered the reasons for the AfD nomination in the first place ;) Don't take this too personally, mind - I know it's frustrating to see an article you've spent a lot of work on get deleted, but it happens to the best of us sometimes. If you're knowledgable about wrestling or LGBT* topics, may I suggest you take a look into WP:WikiProject Sports or WP:WikiProject LGBT Studies? -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 19:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Two claims to fame seem to be good high school wrestler and an openly gay college wrestler. High school All-American honors are not usually enough to give a presumption of notability. Its no different than being a junior national top-8 in something - junior accomplishments usually don't give notability on its own. With regard to being an openly gay wrestler, my biggest issue is, as the article states, he is the second one to come out; not the first. Compare coverage of Jackie Robinson vs. Larry Doby (first modern Major League Baseball black player vs. 2nd player and first in American League). Worse yet, the first one to come out was a lot more accomplished than this subject (multiple time college All-American vs. college freshman). Since he isn't the first, the coverage appears to be more routine, less in depth, and more localized. Also, there are concerns with some, but not all, of the sources not being independent (e.g., two are from the school he wrestles for, one is his instagram profile, another is his youtube channel, outsports.com looks to be a blog, etc.). If he earns All-American honors in college, then the coverage of him being gay may tip the scales to keep over a run-of-the-mill All-American. But right now we have a number of reasons, WP:TOOSOON. WP:1E, etc. to make me comfortable with keep. RonSigPi (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• soft delete with no prejudice - Sadly, WP:TOOSOON. Despite what they have accomplished, and above, I've not found it to bare out in reliable sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't want to repeat the explanations of the lack of notability here, it's obvious and has been well stated above. – Athaenara ✉ 12:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super chair suspension[edit]

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

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

Yeah, it exists, but I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, just some how-it-works explanations. The current article is a mess, reading like a how-to guide without any sourcing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It gets one line in Levitation (illusion), and that's about all it's worth. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:06, 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) 23:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Kramp[edit]

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

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this BLP, to satisfy notability requirements. Mattg82 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a local artis whose work is visialbe, but not on the level to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superstudio (company)[edit]

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

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

Nothing in this orphan article that suggests this passes WP:CORPDEPTH and a BEFORE search also fails to turn-up anything. It has had unresolved maintenance tags for the last six years. Chetsford (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- borders on A7; no incoming links. The awards listed are not significant or well known. WP:TOOSOON or most likely never. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 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) 23:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuickShip.com[edit]

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

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

Nothing in this orphan article that suggests this passes WP:CORPDEPTH and a BEFORE search also fails to turn-up anything. It has had unresolved maintenance tags for the last seven years. Chetsford (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- borders on A7; no incoming links. WP:TOOSOON or maybe never. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article which is effectively a listing describing the company without indication of notability. I am seeing nothing better than the usual listings, none of the WP:RS coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:17, 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) 23:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Wilde (author)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO Tenuous notability. Refs are blogs and trade papers with very minor coverage. Passing mention is several ref. scope_creep (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of quality reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - quality of the sources is low, some things don't seem to come from the source referenced. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You have got to be kidding me. This is a résumé. Won a Stevie? You get one of those by nominating yourself and paying a fee that's ranged from $200 to $505 with an additional fee to attend the awards dinner (Stevie Awards itself is quite the SPAM, too), right in there with paying to have yourself added to any of the plethora of vanity Who's Whos. – Athaenara ✉ 12:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as PROMO. Was started by a month-old acct, after which it was jumped-on a few hours later by several SPAs for further development. May be an autobio, but either way, it seems to exist solely for promotion. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Like many articles created by someone closely connected to the individual, there are unsourced bio details here. Such as labeling her a software engineer or Jewish, as well as the entire career history section titled "Video games". I don't see substantiation for any of these. By the way, CTOs aren't necessarily software engineers. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article and also the photos. I find this weirdly written. It mentions a lot of things that nobody cares about and leaves out the things that could prove notability if they existed. Consider the sentence "She later joined Phil Libin again at his third company, Evernote while working from her sailboat." The claim that she worked from a boat is a trivial detail to an encyclopaedia, and mentioning it is highly suggestive of vanity, while the same sentence makes absolutely no attempt to say what she actually worked as, which should be the whole point of it. The whole article has the feel of insider information, knowing details that can not be referenced and prioritising trivial details promoting or aggrandising the subject over the things appropriate to an encyclopaedia. Speaking at a TEDx event is not the same as the main TED events and does not confer notability. There is nothing to even indicate who the other woman in the second photo is. I have no idea what a "community engineer" actually is/does. Also, am I misinterpreting it, or does the photo look like it is a selfie? If so, that increases the suspicion that this is an autobiography further. The editing history of the article looks a lot like a tag-tem COI scenario and might merit further investigation. Anyway, I see no clear indication of real notability and that alone dooms the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article's sourcing is out of wack, some sources cited make no (or trivial) mention of the article subject. From what I see on the article as it stands, this is a WP:NAUTHOR failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: notability may be subject to debate, but the article is pretty redolent of the promo factor. Possibly a REFUND is due (but in chump change, LOL). Quis separabit? 18:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a contributor to this page, I can address comments - the sailboat is a major point to the notability. Wilde's life on the boat & RV during the Evernote years has brought her notability in its own right and has been written about and covered on international news outlets. Not only that, she is the female chair of an engineering school advisory board: https://www.unlv.edu/engineering/advisoryboard and a VC: http://www.rebelventurefund.com/team/ That said, she may be more well known for being a digital nomad and former flight attendant than anything else. Perhaps she's simply miscategorized - if so, please assign the page to me to work on and reclassify. -- Pilot375 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of better source material to show notability, but because WP:EXTERNALREL I did nothing more than minor edits to clean up. eg: Award: https://issuu.com/lvwoman/docs/lvw_fall_2016- TEDx Organizer: https://www.tedxlasvegas.com/team/ etc. Pilot375 (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the burst of March activity is related to her Inc article about how female pages get deleted on Wikipedia https://www.inc.com/heather-wilde/garfields-wikipedia-page-just-got-vandalized-and-why-this-matters-for-your-bran.html -- Pilot375 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilot375 : " Also, the burst of March activity is related to her Inc article about how female pages get deleted on Wikipedia" -- that would be pretty darned ironic. Quis separabit? 03:25, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dovetail Joint (album)[edit]

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

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

Nothing to suggest this is a notable album as required by WP:NALBUMS. Mattg82 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can find nothing about this album except just a few brief mentions in articles that are about the band themselves. And even articles about the band are very rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While doing the research for my vote above, I decided to nominate the band for deletion as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pheel Balliana[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC none of the sources are in depth coverage in WP:RS. One album review in an obscure music site (Bluesbunny) Domdeparis (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Some minor attention in Brazil but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Also doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC. Mattg82 (talk) 19:25, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elosha[edit]

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

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

The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. While trying to do research on this to make this into a potential project, I could not find enough coverage from reliable, third-party sources to support this character having a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as serious fancruft. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Temple Ahmedabad[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability. Included on a travel website, but that's about it. Article (like many similar ones) is highly promotional as well, but the main problem is that the reliable, independent sources which are about this temple seem to be lacking (searched in Google News, Google Books and the first 5 pages of Google hits). Note that the article is about the existing temple, not about the proposed one that can be found in sources like this and which may be notable on architectural grounds. This is about yet another planned temple. Fram (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article title is a western name with very limited usage. So I made the effort to do some though research with all the name variations, including in Hindu. A search on Highbeam shows five news reports that mention it [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These are literally short mentions. There are maybe 50 or 100 directory listings for the various names of this temple, most in Hindu but many in English, many simply giving the address, others the prayer times and basic info also. Nothing with detail (examples: [6], [7], [8]). Being a major tourist destination in Ahmedabad, it is of course on Tripadvisor and other travel sites such as this and expedia, which are irrelevant to notability here. Being a major temple as far as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness is concerned, there are many primary sources on their website and that of their affiliates as well, also not relevant to notability. As Fram has noted, this and this are about other temples planned by the same organisation in the same city. The temple in question is relatively new with no architectural or traditional significance and carries no special protections or designations. In short, I see nothing which suggests the article is notable or meeting the standards for inclusion. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Wolfson5 (talk) 20:46, 30 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Black Delta[edit]

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

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

subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. RF23 (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Redirect/Merge:

1. Meets WP:BAND criteria #1: independent album reviews in MusicOMH, Under The Radar, Consequence of Sound and Pitchfork.
2. Meets WP:BAND criteria #2: "Tragame Tierra" album charted at #4 on the Billboard Top Dance/Electronic Albums chart in May 2016.
3. Could be renamed/expanded into an article about Jonathan Bates, who potentially meets WP:BAND criteria #6 due to his membership in Mellowdrone and collaborations with Debbie Gibson, M83_(band) and Kimbra (see here).

204.130.0.8 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, with plenty of significant coverage, e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], plus dozens pf smaller pieces of coverage. --Michig (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC) I should add that as a side project of the leading member of Mellowdrone, even if this didn't appear notable, merging there would be a no-brainer. --Michig (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) scope_creep (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Grant[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Minor bond actor, 5 lines. Other refs are shops and blogs. scope_creep (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Well known actress, this is a crazy nom. She's done a heck of a lot more than just appeared in a Bond film and has plenty of coverage in sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Comment Your right. I think it must have been a moment of madness.scope_creep (talk) 12:54, 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Agnes Sina-Inakoju[edit]

Murder of Agnes Sina-Inakoju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Sadly, an unremarkable crime. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's been covered in mainstream media, including the BBC and the Guardian, so seems to fairly clearly meet WP:GNG.[16][17][18][19] I'm not sure quite what the nominator means by "an unremarkable crime". It is notability that guides us, not remarkableness.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT which also weighs how persistent the coverage is over time and how routine the coverage is. A typical crime get two news cycles, the crime itself and the trial/punishment phase. Coverage of this event does not appear to be an exception. While tragic, this crime appears to be ordinary. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources consist of routine coverage of a murder and follow-up fate of perpetrators. Fails based on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper; crimes, even tragic ones, are not automatically exonerated from this fact. The same story is being routinely covered but there is a clear lack of lasting significance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:NOTNEWS: coverage of a murder in London by British newspapers is expected and routine. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Murder is not routine news. Gun violence is in particular not routine in the UK. In this case we have wide coverage by RS around the event, around the conviction, and during subsequent events in the area in 2014-5. We also have a few book mentions.Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Wide coverage of RS around the event and conviction. Books mentions. WP:GNG per mainstream media coverage as well. BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a tragic, but ultimately routine event. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting significance or societal impact; see WP:LASTING. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a murder that has garnered WP:SIGCOV. Note that I added a search bar using a more likely term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Tragic, yes. Notable, no. Clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS--Rusf10 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sad news. Szzuk (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Green[edit]

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

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

WP:ORG and WP:ORGIND. All sources are based on press releases. scope_creep (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- very close to G11 with language such as:

• "The company typically uses conservative marketing tactics with a focus on technology to target a high-end demographic"! Etc.

Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; basically, spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Hale[edit]

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

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Autobiographical promotional article. BEM is the very bottom rung of the UK honours system. Edwardx (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vanity page having no RS. Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Radio personalities are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but the referencing here is not adequate to get her over WP:GNG and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG. I'd also note that after this nomination was initiated, an anonymous IP rewrote the article to be even more advertorialized than it already was — I just had to switch the introduction back to "speaker, best seller expert and book publicist for high-profile entrepreneurs, politicians and celebrities" (i.e. her actual claim to potential notability) rather than "was once a single mother, living in a women's refuge but went on to become an entrepreneur after a career in broadcasting and publishing." I'm happy for her, but people don't get Wikipedia articles just to honour them for making something of themselves out of difficult circumstances — they get articles by being the subject of media coverage about them, but none is being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vlending Co., Ltd.[edit]

Vlending Co., Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete No indications of notability, references are either PRIMARY sources, entries ffrom a website showing an album distributed by the company (not in-depth, no intellectually independent, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND) and an article from theteams.kr which is a Q&A published verbatim with the founder, fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- music distribution companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Notability is not inherited from notable acts, and there's nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Ibn-e-Seena Science School[edit]

New Ibn-e-Seena Science School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Started by User:Arslan Gadi with COI, principal is Qamar Ud Din Khan Gadi. Nothing significant in WP:RS. Private with no coverage fails WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Education[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. Apart from WP:PRIMARY it's unsourced. Kleuske (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1dd no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW Guy (Help!) 18:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Said Janan[edit]

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

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

Article does not cite reliable sources. Relies heavily on a single, and not independent source. No significant coverage in reliable RS found. So doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN.  M A A Z   T A L K  10:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The subject is a current member of a provincial legislature and thus pass speciality notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. What made you say "Article does not cite reliable sources." Its amusing that the websites of KP Assembly does not deem reliable to you. Government websites are primary but are not prohibited and can be safely used for verification purpose. Though I agree more secondary sources should be cited. Have you even bothered to follow Wikipedia:BEFORE? --Saqib (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I read WP:BEFORE and I know that primary sources can be cited to support content in the article but not to establish notability.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Again, this article clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN, and is necessary to reduce the structural bias against non-European people on Wikipedia. Jwslubbock (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notability is established by the WP:POLITICIAN guideline based on the rank of his political role, which is confirmed in reliable (but not independent) sources published by a government body. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: member of state assembly, verified by page from that assembly - clearly notable. PamD 10:06, 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. WP:SNOW Guy (Help!) 18:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sheeraz[edit]

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

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

Article does not cite reliable sources. Relies heavily on a single, and not independent source. No significant coverage in reliable RS found. So doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN.  M A A Z   T A L K  10:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The subject is a current member of a provincial legislature and thus pass speciality notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. What made you say "Article does not cite reliable sources." Its amusing that the websites of KP Assembly and the Express Tribune does not deem reliable to you. Government websites are primary but are not prohibited and can be safely used for verification purpose. --Saqib (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I read WP:BEFORE and yes, primary sources can be cited to support content in the article but not to establish notability. Express Tribune is definitely a reliable source but I have said in my nomination that there is no significant coverage in RS except a mention.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Again, this article clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN, and is necessary to reduce the structural bias against non-European people on Wikipedia.Jwslubbock (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Elected member of provincial assembly, verified by page from that assembly. Clearly notable. PamD 10:04, 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) 17:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sheeler[edit]

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

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

unsuccessful political candidate--no other notability DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; trivial failed political candidate. Kierzek (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete people who loose in the primary for US senate are almost never notable for that alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Running insuccessfully for office does not, of itself, make you notable (WP:POLITICIAN) No evidence of having done anything else to be considered notable. (WP:GNG) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails both WP:SOLDIER and WP:POLITICIAN.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being losing candidates in election primaries — to gain notability from an election in and of itself, a person has to win it and thereby hold office, not just run and lose. But this makes and sources no credible claim that he had any preexisting notability for other reasons, which is normally the only other way a political candidate can get in the door without winning the general election first, nor does it cite nearly enough sources to demonstrate that his candidacy was somehow a special case on the order of Christine O'Donnell's. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NPOL.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:SOLDIER and WP:POLITICIAN-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this on the basis of the NYT article, but I hope Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) will continue removing promotional content, such as the quotations. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coravin[edit]

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

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

totally non-noable product and company. Minor promotional and consumer complaint references only DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article is referenced from a variety of publications, only one of which strikes me as a bit dubious (Entrepreneur, now used only to reference history of the business); the NYT, FT, WSJ vetted blog, and La Revue du vin de France items are all about the company's product. This constitutes adequate evidence of notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this on the basis of the NYT article by their wine columnist, Eric Asimov. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dikson Airport[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Found no significant coverage including in Google News. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm going to wait for some more feedback before voting. The reason why is I'd like to know if we have some type of policy or precedent of giving airports auto-notability. As per WP:RAILOUTCOMES, train stations are given auto-notability. So I think it would make sense that an airport would be given the same status since airports are certainly more notable than a train station.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page you cite specifically states that it is not a policy or guideline. It only states: "Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD." That is not auto-notability. Nor should it be.--Rpclod (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per Notability (geographic features): Buildings *** may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. This article provides no references, let alone any authoritative references, that would show such coverage.--Rpclod (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, "article provides no references", WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very next section states: [T]here must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". I see no significant attention from independent sources.--Rpclod (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is tough, normally I would say no sources = no article, but I have to believe that any commercial airport would be notable. I think the sources we're looking for are probably in Russian, but being that I can't read Russian, I can't add them.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Actual working airport. Commercial service no less - KrasAvia airlines to Norilsk. All the nom had to do was click to Russian WP to see it's a working airport with coverage to boot. I can't imagine an article for a US commercial airport no matter how small even being considered for AfD. Might this be a case of WP:BIAS? --Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Oakshade, commercial airports should get articles as long as they pass WP:V--Rusf10 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I added a source to the article. It's not a great source but at least verifies the airports existence. Hopefully someone can find some better sourcing. I still say if all train stations have articles then commercial airports should too (there are far fewer of them).--Rusf10 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- an airport with a scheduled service & an IATA code. Here's a news item from the Russian News Agency TASS: "Located in the eponymous settlement of the Taimyr Municipal District, Dixon is one of the northernmost airports in the country"; can be read via Google translate. Suffient for a stub, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is clearly notable, there are several good sources, it's used and designated, and articles about train/air stations are generally kept at AfD. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Commercial airports are clearly notable. I don't know why this was even relisted, the consensus was already clear. Smartyllama (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Not too sure about no significant coverage in Google News, but there was some certain notable topic on this geographic features. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:11, 30 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Ibrahim[edit]

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

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

Looks-like a news report as we are WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- (1) This is an unsolved murder. (2) The victim was a Catholic martyr and thus likely to be beatified and then canonised. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing about the coverage here causes this article to currently meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Improve The Junk Could be notable, but might need WP:TNTing in order to make a good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username Needed (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—Certainly notable. See search results or article may be moved to alternate titles like Murder of George Ibrahim.  samee  ^talk 21:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted G11 by Seraphimblade. (non-admin closure) !dave 11:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Eleven[edit]

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

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

Can't find substantial third-party mentions, apparently not notable independent of its artists (I'm getting lots of birch bark canoe hits though :p) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. There's nothing in the article that's not promotional. In addition, fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Preston[edit]

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

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

All sources I can find online seem to deal with a different Ava Preston. This voice actress seems not to be notable. - Add: apparently it is the same person. Notability still doubtful in my eyes as per WP:NACTOR - people with more experience with role notability etc. please assess. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete IMDb is officially deprecated as a source. Having seen the insufferable praise language they have on some living people, which is clearly that person having been given free reighn in creating the biography, I think we need to double-down in applying this rule. The reality is IMDb should probably not be listed as a source at all. Yet at present there are probably hundreds, and at least dozens, or articles that rely only on IMDb as a source. The other source listed here does not in any way provide substanial coverage of Preston. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator here, Elmidae I believe the "different Ava Preston" you linked to IS the voice actress. The opening statement didn't really clarify that so I amended it. When I made the page I was initially only aware of the voice acting but had later added notable recurring live-action roles as well. IMDB is not being relied upon as a source, it is simply listed for convenience. I've added more. ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in that case. With proper referencing and WP:Notability established, this can be kept. Leo1pard (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom/NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON for this child/teen actor. Although her career seems to be progressing nicely, her credits simply aren't strong enough yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:15, 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 delete and redirect to Iraq FA Cup#Finals. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Iraq FA Cup[edit]

2017–18 Iraq FA Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No source; no context Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - A notable competition, namely Iraq's top football cup tournament, but in this state, not useful. Userfy to allow additional content if not added by end of this AfD. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: But I think redirect is better, it will be easily restored this article after bracket is announced. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And userify needs an editor willing to do this. You can consider Drafty. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for a redirect if no one is prepared to take it into their userspace. Fenix down (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Iraq FA Cup. In the same way that the 2020 AFC Champions League redirects to the AFC Champions League. (As it is an upcoming tournament that as of yet has no dates/details about it). Hashim-afc (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hashim-afc: The redirect of 2020 AFC Champions League was created by me and the match schedule of 2020 AFC Champions League was announced in AFC offical website. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I still support a temporary redirect though as we know the tournament will start soon. Hashim-afc (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the topic is notable per @Fenix down:, would not oppose a temporary redirect. Cobyan02069 (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment: Not sure whether it should be deleted or not, but now I think it should redirect to Iraq FA Cup at least until the bracket is announced. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is still ongoing, but it needs to be expanded – 333-blue, 11:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator question: @333-blue: Do you have any source about it? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The Iraq Football Association announced the cancellation of the tournament today.^[1] Thus, the page should be deleted. Hashim-afc (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hashim-afc: We have 2015 Piala Indonesia, should that article be deleted? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking back, we have 2016 Iraqi Super Cup as well which was also cancelled. I guess it doesn't necessarily have to be deleted, especially as there are numerous articles online talking about it's cancellation. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fenix down, 333-blue, and Cobyan02069: You can reconsider your votes after the cancellation was announced. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think a redirect to Iraq_FA_Cup#Finals is still the best outcome. Although the tournament is cancelled, it is still a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy: if it does not exist, then yes, it should be deleted. However, once there are enough secondary sources about the cancellation of this tournament, it should be recreated/kept – 333-blue, 09:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Seacord[edit]

Robert C. Seacord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article does not include any references. I am unable to find any independent coverage of this subject. This subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia:GNG. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 20 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) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Has an H-index of 20, with almost 3000 cites according to Google Scholar.198.58.168.40 (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't see how he passes notability guidelines. --IShadowed (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I notified some editors who had voted on other AfD discussions for academics. I tried to get an even split of people who had voted for both deleting and keeping articles. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Google pulled up an article of his with 200 citations. See also this interview from InformIT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment InformIT is the publisher of the subject's book. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, informIT is a big company. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- likely meets WP:AUTHOR; here's the Worldcat Identities profile: [20]. His Secure Coding in C++ is held by 405 libraries which is big for a specialised publication. I found a review: Review of "Secure Coding in C and C++ by Robert C. Seacord," Addison Wesley, 2006, paperback, ISBN 0-321-33572-4, 341 pp.. Appears to be an authority in the field. The book is published by Addison-Wesley so could be a standard textbook. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, two review articles available on the ACM Digital Library site are downloadable pdf files behind paywalls... so close! I have added a few citations that all amount to primary sources. I pass the citation baton to those with access to the reviews. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's a published author on a topic that interests lots of people - and may alas interest even more over the next few years. The stuff apparently contributed by himself appears to have been removed in 2007. Sure it needs a more diverse balance of sources. Most Wikipedia entries do. But you're not going to build the scope of wikipedia in the way it's founders seem to have intended by deleting them all. Charles01 (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with K.e.coffman that Seacord probably meets WP:AUTHOR, being the sole author of at least 5 books (one source says 6, but I found 5) and co-author of multiple publications with 16 other security professionals, on topics related to secure coding. He has also had some impressive gigs on consultant panels, such as the 2016 Facebook audit. I confess, however, that his pr branding/puffery by NCC Group as "a renowned computer scientist and author, known as the 'father of secure coding' " was off-putting when I found only NCC Group websites use that terminology. The article also needs to be improved by inline citations, even if the only independent references are from reviews of his books. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of notable citations. --IndyNotes (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Clearly a vanity page from the early days of WP. I'm refraining from !vote because this case is right on the border for the following reasons. On the plus side, he does have several co-authored papers with a few hundred citations and one of his books has been cited ~200 times (GS), but this is also a very high-citation area. On the minus side, his many books show marginal WorldCat holdings (low-to-mid hundreds) and we have deleted many computing/programmer BLPs having such book-holding stats, a recent cases being Janet Gregory. (I will politely disagree with my colleague K.e.coffman: IT is an enormously popular area and 400 holdings is not especially impressive. For reference, "well held" books in this area top 2K holdings, e.g. Christiansen's Perl book or Kernighan and Ritchie's C programmers book.) It's very likely that this article will be kept, based upon the above !votes. Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NBIO due to several notable ghits. --Kirbanzo (talk) 19:48, 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Saha[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG the sources are passing mentions (2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, ) do not mention him (10, 13, ) whats on piece that are identical PR pieces (5, 7, 8, 19, 20) WP:INTERVIEW (11) Album credit (4, 18) None are sufficent to pass the notability guidelines Domdeparis (talk) 17:22, 19 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) 00:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 20 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) 22:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny Hallin[edit]

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

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

Delete: as non-notable actress; cannot derive notability by dint of siblings (Penny Marshall, Gerry Marshall). Quis separabit? 01:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spike (Russia)[edit]

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

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

No independent notability for the Russian network. No references to support its development. Article is mainly a TV guide list of programs and the infobox television network. Another option is to redirect this to Spike (TV channel) and add a section about Russia, provided there is something to write about. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) updated 06:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paramount Network. It can be covered in the international versions section. I don't see how this network is significantly different from its parent.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not seem to be anything to merge. Renata (talk) 21:07, 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) 17:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveState[edit]

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

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

Written like an advert, dubious notability, sources are either tangential in nature or first party press releases. FASTILY 21:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How the article is written is not a notability criteria. The company is one of the largest supporting open source development. Between its editor, IDE and language support it is likely to gerner GNG support. A quick search reveals several articles on ActiveState: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] The following mostly discuss their products, but the company is also discussed, and this is the inverse of WP:NOTINHERITED [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. If this is kept, which I would argue it should be, Fastly should be the one to improve the article for not doing WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep References meet the criteria for establishing notability. There are at least two independent sources that provide details of the company and their products. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 30 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas County Speedway[edit]

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

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

Fails CORP. John from Idegon (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Lotsa coverage in the local newspaper; not much else. Rhadow (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All other K&N Pro Series tracks have articles except Meridian Speedway, (which I was planning on creating later). groig (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Groiglery1217, can you please explain how your argument shows this business meets CORP? Also, you should probably read about arguments to avoid at AfD, particularly WP:OSE. John from Idegon (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • John from Idegon, I can move to my userspace, right now we can merge to List of NASCAR tracks, and put all

current information in the article in the "notes" section, and set this as a redirect to that page.groig (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article lacks any indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secdo[edit]

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

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional tone, created by a WP:SPA. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 18:31, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 20 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) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- WP:PROMO / WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; sources are routine funding news, WP:SPIP, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of notability. While the company produces security bulletins for the computer industry, having these bulletins quoted and published in various publications does not meet the criteria for references to establish notability. Fail GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 30 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Morris[edit]

David L. Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only claim to notability is La Crosse Method Protocol, which may or may not itself be notable. Fails WP:GNG PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @RileyBugz: I am curious as to why you accepted this at AfC and then immediately tagged it for notability? If you had concerns why did you accept it? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep An internationally known specialist in sublingual immunotherapy. I don't think. Absolutely notable. scope_creep (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We are not looking for references BY HIM, we are looking for references ABOUT HIM. We are not his CV. His method comes up with zero hits on pubmed [31] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 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. Per the later uncontested sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]