The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Said Baaghil[edit]

Said Baaghil (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. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Terrible article. Fails WP:BIO.scope_creep (talk) 00:56, 31 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) 01:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although the promotional style of the article is fixable, the subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:35, 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 keep. Sadads (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Ousley[edit]

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

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a likely COI/paid editor. Edwardx (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Dead refs. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 00:58, 31 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) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:00, 31 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) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found a lot of good articles about her in Newspapers.com and added them to the article. She is the pioneer of the airbrush makeup kit and there's enough info about her and her work for her to pass GNG. Pinging Scope creep to take another look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep She does seem to be the commercial pioneer of airbrush makeup, about 30+ years ago. It was an old technique, but used sparsly in the cinema. As a bit part actor she is not notable. There is also a fair number of GBook refs, in name only. scope_creep (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as extra reliable sources references have been added so that WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn - As noted below I failed to paste the entire name which is why nothing showed up!, Closing as obviously meets GNG (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JGSP Novi Sad[edit]

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

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

Non notable bus company, Fails COMPANY & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 07:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Second largest bus operator in Serbia. The problem is nobody properly put references so far. To add references for previously deleted content by User:Davey2010 [1].--AirWolf ^talk 11:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added; cleaned up also.--AirWolf ^talk 12:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per apparent failure of WP:BEFORE, precisely D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, each giving a plethora of sourcing [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. What makes you even think that the sole public transport company of a European city of 300,000 is unnotable? WP:NOTCLEANUP. No such user (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Redacted) The reason sources weren't found is because I didn't paste the entire company correctly I somehow pasted this which as you can see comes back with nothing!, (Redacted). –Davey2010^Talk 13:30, 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) 23:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sitanath Munda[edit]

Sitanath Munda (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)

Could not find any sources to substantiate claims like Award Winning. Fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the basis of recognition as "Outstanding Traditional Knowledge Holder" and by award from National Innovation Foundation - India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He only got a consolation award. That does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO --Hagennos (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Google Scholar listed a single publication, cited three times. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Cwmhiraeth and User:Hagennos Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Wrestling[edit]

Defiant Wrestling (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)

Page was previously nominated for deletion. Result was to stubify in order to attempt to prove notability. Nothing has been added to the article which proves notability, only to recreate what was removed by stubify. Galatz^Talk 21:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the status-quo is being abused and can not continue. The subject is minimally notable. I think there are two options:

1. Stubify again (i.e. remove all the wretched tables and all the unreferenced and badly referenced claims) and then protect the article.
2. Delete the whole thing and let that be a lesson to them. :-p

My gut says delete but I'd be happy with either, so long as it puts a stop to the timewasting. I'd also like to see a wider sweep for fancruft in articles about other semi-notable Pro-Wrestling promotions. (But then I don't really have any right to demand other people do that that given that I took one look at it, considered doing so, and then promptly lost the will to live.) --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Heavily promoted article by both fans and WP:PAID crowd. No notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We've tried to work with this and establish notability but it just hasn't happened. Unfortunately, the article has just become a mecca for fans to add cruft.LM2000 (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If deleted, this needs to be Salted. This article has been deleted previously via AfD under its former name, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling. The subject may become notable at some point, which is why it got stubbed in the first place, but our good faith has been abused too much in this case. It should go through the draft process before it gets accepted to the mainspace.LM2000 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not strongly pushing for a delete myself (although I'm also not against it) but whatever outcome we do reach needs to be enforced this time. Everybody here has got better things to do than fight to keep this one article under control. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per Scope creep, and LM2000. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 07:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify and Page Protect - I don't really like the idea of just doing a hard delete for a topic that we've agreed to be notible, and we have things in place to be able to keep articles like this from being bloated. I'm also against a blanket sweep of articles about professional wrestling, or any other genre. If an article is notible, it should really stay, but it does need to be stable. I am very disapointed that we have had to have users completely ignore consensus on two seperate occasions for this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where was it agreed that it is notable? The original closure said there was no consensus on it. - Galatz^Talk 12:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read back the original discussion, you are spot on. I thought it was a lot more people saying we should stubify to remove cruft, but that the idea was notible, but it seems as though people were leaning delete. Actually, you were one of the few people voting keep! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I was. But I felt the consensus was leaning against what I felt. Based on that I feel no additional notability has been established, which is why I nominated it again. - Galatz^Talk 14:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AfD is not the right venue to request page protection, nor to decide on the article content. If the main subject of the article is 'fancruft'(?) and that is not notable, then it should be questioned if the article is actually notable, since an article cannot become less notable via people adding content. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
  • Correct it is not. The issue is that the original closure was to stubify in order to attempt to product notability. The current version of the page has 35 references. 15 of these are some form of WP:PRIMARY. Another 5 are to CageMatch, which is only an RS for results, not to prove notability. Many of the other sources included are not listed as a RS on WP:PW/RS. - Galatz^Talk 12:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and a permanent one This self-promoted so-called wrestling championship is a pre-scripted entertainmment event. WP:NSPORT doesn't apply. I can see nothing that meets WP:GNG - and innumerable non WP:RS sources keep yo-yo-ing back in and out after the previous no consensus !vote with which I was not involved. (I note it was stubify - but we're back to circa 23,000 bytes already. Oops, no, that was this morning. Now it's at 42,900) I did, however, innocently AfD three new Defiant Wrestling-related pages created by SPI's and then got drawn into this sorry saga of likely WP:PAID, but definitely WP:COI-editing by sockpuppets - of which it looks like we have another one sprung up since Corageione et al were blocked for SPI. But the content from those three non-Notable AFD-ed pages then magically reappeared inside this one, which itself is of dubious notability - or non-notable as I interpret it. Show us the reliable, independent sources which have covered this subject in depth and then I'll withdraw my !vote. We're being abused by promoters - plain and simple. This isn't a case of WP:TNT - this topic now needs a hard delete, and with page recreation prevented. I'm pinging @Spartaz:, the closing admin the first time around who said: If we have issues with SPAs and COI editors coming in to push the previous mess we can either move it to draft or have another discussion (hint if its go 2 and the pov pushing is continuing the community tends to delete and not exercise much AGF I think we know where this now needs to go. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Changing my vote to Delete and Salt scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt based on the background given by Nick Moyes.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per above. I'll be userfying this, as it has over a dozen reliable/non-routine sources, but it should go through the draft process. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Doane[edit]

Beth Doane (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. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a likely COI/paid editor. Edwardx (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very poor referencing on a blp article. Most of the coverage seems to mentions of other folks. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does have signs consistent with PROMO, including that the founding acct (which has worked substantially only on one other article, which also may have the same problem as this one) has rotated a series of commercial photographs of the subject through the article's history. Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 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 Move to draft.* This has to be sourced before it can come back to main space. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (*Draft:Nemra (band).) – Athaenara ✉ 00:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nemra (band)[edit]

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

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

I am not sure the article is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. It says that the band's songs got some awards, however, there are no sources for that. Harut111 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable band and poorly sourced. Fails WP:BAND. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is possible that you have confused VMA with another international competition. There is also a competition VMA(Van Music Awards) in Armenia, and here you can find information about it http://vmafm.am/about-project/ , and here about the awards http://vmafm.am/category/2013/,http://vmafm.am/category/2015/november-2015/,http://vmafm.am/category/participants-2017/september-2017/ .If there are more questions, please, do not hesitate to write and please, mention the sources the article lacks. Dreamer14513181 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I recommend giving this article time to develop because there is evidence that the band has been mentioned as appearing at festivals and award shows in their country, and have gained some basic notability there. But the article needs to be improved significantly, and with some unnecessary details removed. To the person working on the article (Dreamer14513181), look up the Wikipedia terms fancruft and reliable sources to see why some people here are opposed to the article's existence. Also consider calling upon the Rescue Squad for assistance. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help DOOMSDAYER520 . We have tried to remove the unnecessary details and have added the reliable sources, please check it out, so the article becomes verifiable. Dreamer14513181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help (but you can't vote in this debate twice). The article is improving, but still quite dependent on Facebook and YouTube as verification that certain events happened. If they cannot be verified any other way, they may not be notable events. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Performing at festivals is not enough for WP:NBAND - the awards probably do not meet the current criteria Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. - I think this is a bit unfair to those may win awards that are important in their country, but this is the current critera. These criteria may help establish notability for these types of bands: Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. or Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. but I haven't seen any WP:RS for this. The music videos are mentioned but I can't find any source besides YouTube. I don't think the article can be kept unless an independent RS can be found that establishes notability. Also noting the article creator has voted twice in this AfD and one of the votes should be struck.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I am not sure when this AfD will close, but I think if they are selected to represent Armenia at Eurovision on Feb. 25th, this would be enough for notability. If the AfD closes before this, I think the best thing would be to userify or move to draftspace and the article can be recreated when notability can be established with independent, secondary sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or userfy. I've looked at the sources in both the English and the Armenian articles, and cannot see anything WP:RS to justify a keep vote. I would vote delete but for one thing: Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018. If they are selected on 25 February 2018, IMO they should pass WP:NBAND. If their single "I'm a Liar" charts in Armenia and/or gets placed on rotation, IMO they may pass. Narky Blert (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or userfy changing vote, there is a chance this will pass NBAND in the future, but it does not right now.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point entirely. It would be a pity to delete all the work that went into this article should the band sail through WP:NBAND in just three weeks time. Narky Blert (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the article should stay as the band is one of the most notable rock bands in Armenia and is getting more and more famous every day. Besides, they are the first to represent Armenia in an international festival, they also had concerts in Georgia and they are always busy with festivals and concerts. I think they have changed a lot in Armenian rock industry, that is why the article should stay. Susanna ghazoyan (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, add some WP:RS sources, in any language. As of now, there aren't any. Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Garst[edit]

Kim Garst (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 any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete One of the ref's has malware at the end of it. Most of the refs are blog, and affiliate sites, social media. Not much in the way of coverage. She is also advertising her book on Amazon. Changed to strong delete.scope_creep (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not seeing anything approaching what would count as references from reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Venugopal[edit]

Dinesh Venugopal (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)

Dinesh Venugopal is a businessman. He has been interviewed on behalf of his company and has received an award for which he paid a fee, but I do not believe he meets our notability requirements. The article is mildly promotional and appears to be written by an undisclosed CoI editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BLP Hagennos (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Haven't been able to find independent sources for notbility Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Stephens[edit]

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

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

This article has come to some prominence at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#DYK_and_COI/paid_editors. As a US associate professor, this likely fails WP:NACADEMIC. I am also struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources about her (after all, it was her student(s) who found the planet) - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 00:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep She passes WP:NPROF and subsequently WP:BIO, with a citation number of 1806 and an H-index of 22. WP:SNOW keep close. scope_creep (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question I rarely nominate academics for deletion, so am unclear from reading WP:NPROF whether those numbers are adequate to meet criterion #1; noting from h-index, that "physics has the second most citations after space science". Edwardx (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an interesting, well-researched article which presents the achievements of an enthusiastic university teacher. She is certainly sufficiently notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and boggle. Passes WP:GNG (just) per article[7] about her leading undergraduate students to discover a planet.
  And note the massive systemic bias underpinning this nomination. If Stephens was a male professional footballer, then her notability would be automatic per WP:NFOOTY even if her only professional appearance was a few minutes as a substitute in a single game. If she was a porn star, then she'd be an automatic keep per WP:PORNBIO#2 for her unique contribution.
  In this case, Stephens has been employed as a professional academic in major university for over ten years, which is way more than the notability threshold for footballers. Yet we still have a call to delete the article. Boggle.
  Are we here to build an encyclopedia? Or to run a fanzine for football fans and porn users? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You state that it just passes WP:GNG because of that article, yet GNG states, "multiple sources are generally expected". And as it is a local newspaper, it seems reasonable to expect more than just that one article. As for any bias, it is not my bias, so cannot underpin this nomination. With nearly 4,000 article creations, none of "mine" are footballer players or porn stars, and I started over 100 articles for notable women in November alone. Edwardx (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Edwardx: It's odd to call The Salt Lake Tribune a local newspaper, when List of newspapers in Utah shows it to be the biggest-circulation newspaper in Utah. "Regional and local" papers are listed below, and The Salt Lake Tribune isn't one of them.
And I note you don't actually dispute disagree that if she was a footballer, then she'd be an automatic keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @BrownHairedGirl: I accept that the SLT is technically a regional paper, albeit one with a small and shrinking circulation. It's still not "multiple sources". And other stuff exists is never a persuasive AfD argument. Not sure if she was ever a football player, but I have started "the most remarkable referee in England". Edwardx (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwardx: I agree with BrownHairedGirl: the Salt Lake Tribune isn't just a "local" paper and even if it was, it wouldn't cease to be a reliable source that helps establish notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Megalibrarygirl: The circulation number may be similar, but those Irish and Danish papers are read by the country's leaders; not the case for the SLT, barring Mitt Romney and the heads of the LDS. Edwardx (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - @Edwardx: The leaders of the United States likely do read the Salt Lake Tribune. For example the six senators listed here are certainly within it's target demographic, my understanding is that members of the LDS are well represented in American politics, and that this is their main publication. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

@Edwardx: my point has nothing to do with the size of the SLT's readership. It simply doesn't matter. A local source is still a reliable source. It still helps show notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Reply @Edwardx: shrinking circulation is an issue for nearly every newspaper worldwide, as news goes online. SLT's circulation remains similar to that of the major newspapers of smaller, highly-developed countries such as Ireland and Denmark (Irish Times, Politiken, Berlingske).

I am not making a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument. I am arguing against the way in which we are asked to assess the notability of this article against a set of guidelines which have been captured by the pop culture interests of en.wp's dominant demographic of editors, contrary to the basic principle that (per WP:ABOUT) this is an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as already explained by others, clearly meets WP:NPROF criteria. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
• Maybe Discovering planets is important but it's clear that it is happening all the time and the only source that discusses her work in detail is the Salt Lake Tribune but that is in the context of her training her students to do it. The Wall Street Journal is behind a paywall but appears to be about how they have a lot of PhDs on the university football team. The Daily Herald discusses in a few sentences how she runs Astrofest, an annual public outreach event that introduces children to science, worthwhile but hardly significant coverage. The other sources are even weaker being extracts from her own CV or course details. Sorry, but there is no "boggle" about it, the current article is very borderline as BrownHairedGirl noted and does not make her individual significance clear. Perhaps it can be rectified with additional sources, but right now the case for her notability is not proven. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Philafrenzy: Do you disagree that if she was a footballer, then she'd be an automatic keep? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take your word for it, I never create articles on sport, but have often had to defend professors at AFD who would probably be automatic keeps if they were sportspeople, but this is not the place to try to change policies, however perverse or unjust they may be. (check my user page for the probably 100s of notable women I have created articles about) The fact remains that this is weak article about a person on the borderline of notability. I note that despite everyone saying above how obvious it is that she is notable, the article has only had one minor edit since this discussion started. Prove it! Add the sources and then it will be kept. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY and WP:NPROF are not policies. They are guidelines, which are intended to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Stephens would be an automatic keep if she was a male footballer, and I see no basis in policy for imposing a higher bar on a knowledge creator than is applied to an entertainer. If one professional gig is enough to keep an article on someone who kicks a piece of inflated leather and received zero GNG-qualifying secondary coverage, then it's enough to keep someone who has made an enduring (albeit minor) contrib to the sum of human knowledge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who claimed she is less notable than a footballer? Not me. I am calling for evidence of her scholarly impact to be added to the article to prove her notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)4[reply]

Your initial !vote said right now the case for her notability is not proven. If she was a footballer, it would be taken as proven. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not proven per the GNG or as an academic. I never mentioned football. Enough already with the football comparisons BrownHairedGirl please. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the double standard goes, I'll drop the comparison. But while ball-kickers get a free pass on GNG, I'll apply the same to academics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes PROF, as per Scope creep. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Edwardx, an H-index of 22 is reasonable, any citation count above 500 would be very respectable. 1806, means that she is at the top of her field and/or brilliant, or both. There is a guide on WP that will tell you. A H-index below 10, and a citation count, below a 100-200 is low, below 100 is very low and would need WP:SIGCOV to support. I saw this BLP in WP:AFC last month that was being continually rejected, but was an academic who had a citation count of about 69000. Some kind of primary brain, psycho nutter type. The NProf standard is the only non subjective notabilty measure that we have on WP, so it is very easy to tell at a glance. Snow Keep. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think we have a notable academic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per scope_creep's numbers. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 at the very least. XOR'easter (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically this is a case of WP:BLP1E, i.e., the planet discovery (mostly because it was discovered when she was an undergrad; there are thousands of known exoplanets). I won't challenge the numerical veracity of ScopeCreep's data but I will challenge the inference he draws. Assuming GS numbers were used, an h-index of 22 and a citation count of 1800 are unremarkable for an associate prof working in the sciences at a research oriented institution. She's a solid, productive mid-career scientist but I'm not seeing that the criteria of WP:NPROF are satisfied. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per scope_creep. I do not agree with BrownHairedGirl's football/pornstar analogies – though certainly Wikipedia and the media in general have systematic biases favouring men, the arguments made seem to be more in favour of policy changes than relevant to this particular discussion. However, I think Stephens has just about received significant coverage in the Salt Lake Tribune, Daily Herald and Wall Street Journal articles (though I can't read the paywalled WSJ source) and I understand her citation count makes her notable (though WP:NPROF says "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness" so I'm not sure whether the h-index of 22 is particularly relevant). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The SL Tribune article is not a local article. The Provo Daily Herald is local, Salt Lake City is not local. What next will we have people saying an article in the Detroit News on someone in Lansing is "local coverage"? Here [8] is an article from Salt Lake based KSL on the planet discovery. I guess, knowing past arguments, some will argue that since BYU and KSL are both owned by the LDS Church, this somehow is not an indepdent article, but this ignores the actual way news gathering is done at KSL among other things. I'm not sure this link adds much [9], but it provides more information than we have on some football players. I would argue we need to make the notability guidelines for football players a bit more stringent. The attempt to hold being an assistant professor against her seems to be a misunderstanding of the American academic system. Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Full Professors, at least at BYU, are all full-time positions. I was going to say "tenure track" but BYU does not technically grant tenure, but it does grant continuing status that is similar in most respects to tenure. Considering that Stephens is the mother of 7 children, her still being an Assistant Professor may in part be a result of taking maternity leave, but this has not prevented her from publishing and making significant community and university impact. Assistant professors are in all sense professors, very different from adjunctnt professors, who are "part time" in pay, but not always in work load. At heart the deletion nomination may reflect the systemic difficulties of married mothers advancing in academia, but Stephens has clearly made a notable impact. The claim "it was her students who discovered the planet" is misleading in the extreme. Most discoveries are done by groups, and she was the leader of the group. I won't claim to fully understand h-index and citation counts, but if 22 is not high enough as an h-index and 1800 is not high enough as a google scholar specific citation count, we should just scrap academic notability criteria #1 and instead made academics rise or fall on GNG alone, with possible exceptions for more specified academic criteria, which will be much easier for academics who do not have to spend over 5 cumulative years pregnant, and who instead of choosing a high impact to future learning activity like sponsoring BYU's astrofest, spend their time in activities that more fully fit in some rigid definition of major academic activity. If we are to keep academic notability criteria 1, than we will keep the article on Stephens.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Wall Street Journal article is about a intramural flag-football team that she is the captain of. It plays against other women's flag football teams at BYU, the other ones are all made up of students. It is the only intramural team that is made up of female faculty at the university. BYU has a fairly active, broad, and large system of intramural sports. Many of the teams are fielded by student wards, which are religious congregations of about 150 students. I was in multiple student wards that fielded intramural teams, although I myself never participated. The Deseret News ran this article [10] that should make it so everyone can understand what is going on with the Wall Street Journal article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new source you added John is directly about her but its not very in depth nor is it independent. I see you added it at the end under "Sources", presumably because you knew it wasn't independent? I changed it to External Links. It might also qualify as Further Reading. The stuff about her children and tenure progression and being a victim of her gender etc is all completely irrelevant here, however valid those points might be elsewhere. We still lack reliable independent sources that discuss her in depth apart from the SLT which I agree is sound. If you follow the link to the paper in Nature about the discovery of the planet, which I was optimistic might help, in fact one sees she is one of around 50 authors credited. I know that's not unusual in scientific papers but it hardly helps here. Frankly, the article and some of the sources, the fact that it was created by a student at her university, are all beginning to look promotional of the subject. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case anyone has forgotten, the student who created the article was paid and then put it forward at DYK, where it would have reached the front page if the reviewer (who has not voted here) had not noticed the problems with it. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The previous comments on the Salt Lake Tribune are very misleading. The Salt Lake Tribune is if anything an anti-Mormon paper. It as often disparages the LDS Church and its leadership as anything else, and is a key player in attempts to weaponize suicide rates. The lead publication of the LDS Church is the Deseret News. The Deseret News has especially through its Church News and related supplamant wide circulation far beyond the most broad regional interpretation of the Utah/Mormon cultural zone. It is without question the provider of the most indepth articles we get in a physical newspaper at my house in Sterling Heights, Michigan, and the newspaper I most often go to to get quick reads on broad US news, and even outside Michigan coverage of Michigan events, in its online form. Yet my sister-in-law is a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune. I would guess that all four members of the US house and 2 members of the US senate from Utah subscribe to both papers, and Love and Curtis probably also subscribe to the Provo Daily Herald. The Salt Lake Tribune won a Pulitzer Prize last year for its reporting on issues about BYU policies, although some of us would argue that the reporting was far less than balanced. One thing that has become clear in the previous discussions is that people are willing to comment on things they know almost nothing about. The reason I added the source under "sources" is because I actually only used it to source her maiden name, and did not think linking a source to her name was worth doing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is consensus the SLT is a sound source, the trouble is it is the only good one here and it discusses her in a context of a collective effort as confirmed by the numerous authors in the Nature paper. Where are the other sources that discuss her in depth? We need more than one. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There simply are not enough published sources.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• meh. This person is marginally notable (barely.. and probably on the side of failing); the article was created by an employee of the school and this thing was very PR-y in a very classic and depressing university BOOSTER PR kind of way. However, it is OK now, there is some notability, and we want more articles about women in STEM. I doubt that Stephens is going to fall off the face of the earth so it is likely that the notability argument will only get stronger with time, so let it be. I don't at all like the "footy" argument. If the whole encyclopedia got dragged down to the level of our pages (which I will not call "articles") about sports people and pop culture topics I would quit. Please do not argue to make WP more shitty by drawing analogies to the shittiest parts of it. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Al Baker. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brittani Bo Baker[edit]

Brittani Bo Baker (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. Her father was a notable football player, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Written by a SPA, this is fairly blatant PROMO of the subject's business and social activities. May be notable, but TNT probably applies here before we could really know that. Agricola44 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to article on her father, where all that is covered in this article can be covered in a much less promotional way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gould (designer)[edit]

Peter Gould (designer) (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. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO. No refs. Little coverage. scope_creep (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails all notability guidelines. Name dropping in an article does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Spofford Morgan[edit]

John Spofford Morgan (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)

Biography of a person whose only discernible notability claim is that he married his partner in 2011 after same-sex marriage was legalized. Virtually all of the references here are WP:ROUTINE obituaries of him, his husband and his mother upon their deaths, or glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him — and the only reference that's actually about him is a blurb about the marriage itself in a "reasons to love New York" listicle. The simple fact of getting married is not, in and of itself, a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article, and notability is not inherited, so having a notable mother doesn't automatically make him special either — but the sourcing here isn't adequate to make his marriage more notable than millions of other marriages. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect to his mother Barbara Spofford Morgan. If you are fine with me proceeding right now, I can do that. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and do not redirect. This person is quite simply non-notable, per nom. Getting married does not confer notability, and nor does being gay – both are extremely common. There's no reason to keep a redirect, and there's surely no justification for copying the content of the article into that of his mother. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge and redirect 51000 google hits [11] and [12] and [13] and [14] and [15] and [16] and more than 500 google books references [17] and [18] and [19] and [20] and [21] and says that the name is notable. I should add the name was already in wikipedia on the grandfather page. A short paragraphs on the mother with a redirect is the minimum.Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They are not notable. scope_creep (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride. Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies. Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The "more than 500 Google books" turn out to be 11 "books"[22], none of them with any text that would indicate notability for John Spofford Morgan (he gets thanked for helping in research, or is listed as a member of something, that's it). The regular Google hits drop down to 28 hits on closer scrutiny as well[23]. The attempted canvassing is also noted. Fram (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open google search About 190,000 results (0.41 seconds) [24] Closed google search About 9,760 results (0.36 seconds) [25] Closed google books search About 647 results (0.34 seconds) [26] For notability the subject could not be the main topic, it's enought the sources are reliable. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With Google searches you need to check that the numbers are not massively inflated, as is often the case. Go to page 10 and see if you still get results. No? Then the original numbers are way too high. Your statement "For notability the subject could not be the main topic, it's enought the sources are reliable." is not true. For notability, the sources need to pay significant attention to the subject, not just mention it in passing. Please indicate one or two of your Goohgle Books results which pay significant attention to the subject. Fram (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Magazine reliable source, on the subject, independent. (reblogged many times)

Norfolk Now reliable source, on the subject, independent.

Library of Congress reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.

District of Columbia Library Association reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.

Norfolk Historical Society reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.

Party Animals Travel Across the Nation: LC Traveling Exhibition Features Political Symbols, reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.

Library of Congress Information Bulletin, reliable source, on the subject even if not main topic, independent.

By-laws, Rules and List of Officers and Members, reliable source, not main topic, independent.

Boston Symphony Orchestra, Volume 59, reliable source, not main topic, independent.Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first two are well-known by now and not from Google Books anyway. The others: this is not about John Spofford Morgan, it is about his ancestor? This, this and this is the exact same article. This is a newsletter from an historical society for a town of less than 2,000 inhabitants. These kind of hobbyists newsletters don't give notability. This is an entry in a list of members of a club, as is this. Like I said above already... Being mentioned a few times, mostly in relation to an ancestor, does not give someone notability. Which leaves you with the Nymag and nornow articles, where the Norfolk now is an obituary in a very local newswebsite, and the other is a typical lifestyle one-event news item. There simply isn't the notability we require for biographies. Fram (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked if there were RS on the subject. New York Magazine is a Reliable Source. The Newsletter of a Community is a Reliable Source. The others, even if not on the subject, are Reliable Sources about him (the one about the grandfather already using his name on the Wikipedia page of the Grandfather). And I should add, you are forgetting that my initial proposal is to merge the info on the section of the mother. I think all the reliable sources more than justify a redirect and merge on the mother. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I asked "Please indicate one or two of your Google Books results which pay significant attention to the subject." From my search and your reply, it has become clear that none of them pay significant attention to the subject (they either are about an ancestor, or just mention him in a list). So your posts about hundreds of Google Books results are inflated and misleading, as there aren't hundreds but 11, and those 11 don't give him any notability. And considering that the sources about the mother don't pay attention to him, and that the few sources about him don't pay attention to his mother, merging the two is just an attempt to keep this information in enwiki no matter what. Fram (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion as I'm to mine. New York magazine (which was reblogged more times), the official Newsletter of the Norfolk town, the official website of the Library of Congress AND their bulletin (more than once) are all Reliable Source who deals with the subject in dept. Other sources (Harvard Club and Boston Symphony Society) refers to him to in a list. Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being reblogged is not important, being referred to in a list is not important, being mentioned (once, republished the same text in multiple places) by the LoC in an article about an ancestor where the subject helped with the research is not an indicator of notability either (for the ancestor, yes, not for the subject). All yo have is the NYMag article and the Norfolk obituary. You think this is sufficient, others here clearly don't agree. Fram (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2385 characters on the New York Magazine on the subject: [27], 2105 character on the Norfolk newsletter: [28], 1118 characters on the Library of Congress webiste just on the subject (I did not count that on the ancestor): [29] 1684 characters on the Norfolk Historical Society on the subjec t: [30]. This amount to 7292 characters directly on the subject from Reliable Sources. The listing just help support the notability. I summarized them in a 1329 paragraph (using [31] and [32] and [33] and [34] and [35] and [36] and [37]) as a merge and redirect on the mother. I think that is fair enough. Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The LoC has nothing directly on the subject[38]. Read that article and tell me what JS Morgan is known for. Never mind why that would be relevant information for the article on his mother. The Norfolk newsletter you now reference is indeed not an obituary, but is also not the official Newsletter of the Norfolk town, but the newsletter of the Norfolk Historical Society. The obituary is the article from the Norfolk Town news site. Fram (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that one of the main sources it's actually not a duplicate but a new one, "Norfolk Historical Society". Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You already included both separately in your above list of sources (second and fifth one), and I already discussed them above, so there is litle "new" about it, and it still is a hobbyists newsletter from a small local club (the historical society of a town with less than 2,000 inhabitants). Fram (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you said potato, I said patata. "Norfolk Historical Society" is not "Norfolk Town". Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gwenaëlle Gobé[edit]

Gwenaëlle Gobé (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. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Little in the way of coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, have found some passing mentions but not enough for notability. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON, only a small body of work (mainly short films) at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jacques-Alain Miller. T. Canens (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurly-Burly[edit]

Hurly-Burly (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 AfDed in 2012 (no consensus) with reason "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not included in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." It's still not indexed anywhere and no independent sources supporting notability have come up (despite some puffery in the article from involved persons). Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to the 2012 AfD (didn't show automatically because the article was moved): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurly-Burly (Journal)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not in Web of Science, not in Scopus, only 32 articles returned by Google Scholar (which has pretty much everything) and only a handful of GS citations. No Google Scholar Metric for the journal. In other words: this journal is not even remotely bloody WP:NOTABLE. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 11:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons eloquently expressed by Famousdog. The faster the better. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jacques-Alain Miller , the founder. I'm not sure the usual standards for academic journal do not apply to this work which has its context only within Lacanian psychoanalysis. It would be very surprising to find material of that sort in WOS or SCOPUS. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

I'd be fine with a merge to any of Jacques-Alain Miller, Jacques Lacan, or New Lacanian School, whichever is deemed most suitable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Jacques-Alain Miller per DGG Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Ann Roberts[edit]

Jo-Ann Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a single-market local radio host and non-winning candidate for political office. As always, neither single-market radio hosts nor unelected political candidates are granted an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the sourcing here isn't actually helping to single her out as more notable than the norm for either endeavour: her radio work is covered off by a single source from the local media about her announcing her retirement, and her unsuccessful campaign for office is supported by purely run of the mill campaign-related coverage of the type and volume that every candidate in any election always gets.
For both local talk radio hosts and non-winning election candidates, the key to making them notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not just to show that some sources exist, because some sources always exist for everybody who does either of those things -- the key to getting someone into Wikipedia on either of those grounds is to demonstrate that for some real reason she's substantially more notable than the thousands of other people who've been local radio hosts and/or unsuccessful election candidates without getting Wikipedia articles for that. But the sourcing here is just showing exactly what every local radio host and every candidate in every election could always show, and is not demonstrating a credible reason why she's more notable than everybody else who's done the same things. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not notable as politician or radio host as per Bearcat.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete defeated candidates for political office are almost always not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Thomas (graphic designer)[edit]

Jesse Thomas (graphic designer) (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)

Notability is only for JESS3. That article is remarkably promotional, but I think the importance is mainly for the firm . Certainly having two is using WP for promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—Article originator here. At the time I created this article in 2012, I believed it met the threshold for notability. However, I recognize that consensus has shifted to a stricter reading of guidelines—especially regarding companies and their founders—and on that basis, I have no objection to deletion. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to JESS3 per DGG Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Macdonald[edit]

Isabella Macdonald (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)

Biography, referenced to a single primary source that's much more about her husband than her, of a person notable only as the first wife of a politician. While her husband did eventually become Prime Minister of Canada, that didn't happen until ten years after Isabella's death -- so it doesn't make her a spouse of a Prime Minister of Canada for the purposes of clearing the "first lady" exemption to WP:NOTINHERITED, because she wasn't married to him during his term as PM. We extend "first lady" notability to people who are married to a national leader during the national leadership -- but we do not grant "extended genealogy" notability to the first wives that the future leaders were divorced from or widowed by a full decade before actually becoming a national leader, if their notability and sourceability in their own right is this limited. (I'll grant Edna Diefenbaker as an isolated special exception to that, because she was actually the subject in her own right of a full-on biography by a major Canadian writer separately from having had her name mentioned in sources about her husband — but it's the book that makes her a special case, not any sort of automatic inclusion freebie for dead first wives of MPs who hadn't attained the Prime Ministership yet.) Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:HEYMANN, thanks to User:Ipigott for major upgrade to article, sourcing, to which I want to add both the fact that as the wife of one Prime Minister and mother of another, she gets profiled in biographies of both, and the fact that this article, which has been with us since 2003, gets ~20,000 hits a month. I know that this is not a policy=based argument, but it is a kind of people's vote - clearly, people come here to check out the wife of the first Prime Minister of Canada.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am very surprised to see that this very early Wikipedia women's biography from 2003 is suddenly up for deletion, especially as the nominator has edited the article several times since 2009. As the first wife of Canada's first prime minister and the mother of his only surviving son Hugh John Macdonald, Isabella Clark Macdonald has an important place in Canadian history. As noted above, I have come across several accounts of the life of Isabella and have started expanding the article along these lines. The article is no longer based on a single primary source.--Ipigott (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG, with 2 pieces of substantive coverage[39][40], and a para in her husvand's biog in the Dictionary of Canadian biography[41]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. NOTINHERITED does not mean that we cannot have articles on people who have an association with someone more famous than themselves. It merely means that we have to demonstrate that the subject is notable by our usual rules, instead of using arguments based on their association. In this case, GNG notability has been demonstrated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per WP:GNG. Sources added by other editors demonstrate notability. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are more than adequate sources present in the article, although it is clear the article could benefit from several others that do exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme: Personal Assistant[edit]

Extreme: Personal Assistant (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:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG nothing found of note in a WP:BEFORE search. Sartup pitch and the company's own web site, a forum, a facebook page and a PR churnalism article are far from sufficent. Article written by a user with almost the same name as the developer... Dom from Paris (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Adverting page. scope_creep (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fallon Fox[edit]

Fallon Fox (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 primary written around Fox's gender issues of being a transgender MMA fighter in female division. No top tier promotion fights - fails WP:NMMA and Fox's last fight 3.5 years ago, meeting nobility criteria seems distance. The page might be written by a paid editor. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - @CASSIOPEIA: Can you please explain how this BLP fails WP:GNG? NMMA is about presumed notability, not a threshold for all articles about MMA fighters. From what I can see, she passes GNG as there's significant coverage of her in reliable and mainstream sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. it is not fails of GNG that I refered to but WP:MMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: i understand you mentioned WP:NMMA, but that is not a requirement for all articles about MMA fighters. Rather, MMA fighters who meet those thresholds are presumed to be notable. However, some may be notable for other reasons. I think that's the case here. Fallon Fox notable in part because she is a trans woman MMA fighter. She appears to meet WP:GNG to me. Unless you can convince me her article doesn't meet GNG, I see no reason to delete it. Not meeting NMMA alone isn't sufficient reason. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:, Fox has not fought not only on top tier promotion she has not fought in second tier as well. She got coverage on news was comment from UFC personals/commentators/press on how would she match up with former champion Ronda Rousey. However, in reality, in term of Fox's fights record or achievement, she was far from meeting the criteria to be make the match up. The coverage she received was not about her fights as a MMA fighter but as a transgender for her fights were mainly routine same as thousands of MMA fighters. It has been always a debate between GNG and SNG in Wikipedia - same as many business men, singers, artists and musicians, they do have coverage on media but most do not pass WP:DIRECTOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NACTOR or WP:ENTERTAINER for the criteria to meet nobility based on their achievement of their work, significant of their roles on their field, significant "cult" following. This is same as in sportperson on sport specific nobility criteria to meet on participating on top level competitions, award winning record. GNG covers less form of nobility criteria as long as subject passes significant coverage with reliable source but not subject's achievements. Nobility should be permanent but not passing in my opinion, Fox might meet the criteria 3.5 years ago when she was an active fighter but does she has not been active since and no major achievements received, just as an singer received coverage entering a singing competition but not album was produced years after that. This is mainly my thought. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I appreciate the time and thought they put into their reply, I am not convinced by CASSIOPEIA's rationale here. This article meets WP:GNG. Though Fallon Fox might not be in the spotlight anymore, this is akin to a "one hit wonder"; her MMA career was notable, even if short. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Wikipedia MMA project WP:MMA defined MMA record notability that a fighter had 3 top tier fights or more - see here WP:NMMA and the top tier promoters are UFC and Invicta FC - see here WP:MMATIER. I have nothing against LGBT community - There are plenty of them in top tier MMA today, notably Amanda Nunes, Jéssica Andrade, Tonya Evinger, Nina Ansaroff, Tecia Torres, Raquel Pennington and Sijara Eubanks to name some. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per above. Rab V (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - easily passes WP:SUSTAINED. L293D (✉ ) 02:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Books Online[edit]

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

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

Not significantly covered in independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep -- for context, I am a computer science librarian at MIT. Safari is a major publishing product -- it is notable as a product that is purchased by most academic libraries in the US as well as by many companies, and is a long-running ebooks platform, and in my estimation is notable in the sense of both broad interest and of being one of the first of its type. It will be mostly covered in the trade publishing and library press. It looks like the article just needs to be re-written to be less spammy and with more coverage; I'll work on finding independent coverage. This article needs caretaking, not deletion. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 14:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

phoebe I'm withdrawing my nom. I hope you'll improve it to some standard as you said above. Thanks in advance. Störm (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Edwards (actor, born 1966)[edit]

Eric Edwards (actor, born 1966) (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)

After removing the copyright violation, we are left with an article that has the same issues as the version that was deleted at AFD. As G4 has already been declined, I am re-nominating at AFD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article is worthy of remaining in Wikipedia, as the person is notorious in the acting field. I should modify it little by little Julio P. 03:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)

The problem is that there's no in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources that would show the subject is notable as defined by Wikipedia. If you have any such sources please add them to the article. Right now all we've got is IMDb. That's not enough. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my previous AfD nomination. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article has 0 reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Young (entrepreneur)[edit]

Christian Young (entrepreneur) (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)

News coverage is provided only by unreliable sources. None of the sources are intellectually independent. The Buzzfeed article is not by staff but a "Community Contributor". These types of articles can be purchased to create a semblance of news coverage. Outlets like timemail.in ("The Time Mail assures to bring to you the quality contents clubbed with the fearless journalism".)^[1] will publish anything. Mduvekot (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a vanity page. --IndyNotes (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is poorly written. If he is actually the president of FD9, there should be more information about him because FD9 is a known incubator. Also Coordinates collection had become part of a publicly listed company in a widely covered takeover. The author has failed to mention any of those sources. If any experienced editor can rework this to reduce the promotional content, it MAY help. I have removed a LOT of the fluff. Stripped it down to its bare minimum. Not sure if I vote keep (I am searching for more reliable sources) but it is not a strong delete as a "subject" but definitely poorly written.Drmaisel (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete delete based on sources, I'm not really finding the coverage we need. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gale Force[edit]

Gale Force (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)

• 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tossing this here as a kind of test balloon. To my understanding, this fails all the criteria at WP:NFILM; in particular there's no substantial and reliable coverage. - Depending on what people more experienced with film criteria think, there seems to be at least half a dozen articles about films by this director (Jim Wynorski) that are at the same level, and I'd either leave them alone or string them up depending on the outcome.

(I see this was earlier closed as redirect and an editor tried to fix it up afterwards, but that doesn't seem to have done anything for the referencing.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep As an article, not a redirect page. This what I wrote in the talk page I beleive I make a good case:

I accidentally restored this page. However, it was very confusing to me as a reader, that why when I clicked on the title of the film was I reading the bio of the director.

For that I do think that it is not proper for Gale Force being a redirect toward the page of the cult director Jim Wynorski. If in one's bio it is important to mention to mention the film Gale Force due to the importance its director of its cast. I would suggest one to write: Gale Force directed by Jim Wynorski, co-starring so and so on.

I prefer keeping the article, however I prefer deletion over keeping it as redirect.

Currently, it is much more worth as reader to stumble on page about Gale Force than to be confused with Wynorski's bio. I saw the film and understand it is a simple direct to video action film. However there is sufficient references out there to confirm the film exist, to have a full synopsis, cast list, release, and even an award section. From which I took the initiative of updating from earlier versions.

The film has a surprisingly famous cast,Treat Williams, Michael Dudikoff, Curtis Armstrong, Susan Walters, Tim Thomerson, Marcia Strassman, and many more, which will keep a Wiki reader going, and clicking away.

Now the Gale Force space exist. Hence I suggest keeping it, over having a page where it is written that it's been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7BF5:DB00:882F:FE11:A004:FC1D (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gale Force is over all a standard direct to DVD film, however it has a nice collaboration people, and was without being an overly important film it was properly released. Gale Force could have a nice standard movie page, with over 5 annotation to prove it exist, that could make for a good read, and allows the reader to click away at interesting names.

NOTE: I did all the mentioned in the last paragraph. Gale Force is now a standard article about a random B-movie with a well known cast.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has been reviewed by South Florida Sun Sentinel and also film critic.com which is used as a professional critic at rotten tomatoes which makes it a reliable source according to WikiFilm Project. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to University of Pretoria. T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

University of Pretoria Faculty of Theology and Religion[edit]

University of Pretoria Faculty of Theology and Religion (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)

Seems completely promotional in nature. Also, nothing to support any sort of notability. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 13:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the Pretoria community, and I see nothing promotional about this article. What I do see is simply one more faculty attempting to outline what it is doing on the University of Pretoria campus, like all the other UP faculties which have created similar articles. There are no photos, no hook lines, and no sales pitches. If anything, this article is light on information, and if a reader is to really get a sense of what is happening in Theology and Religion at UP, more content should be made available. As for notability, the article clearly states that the faculty turned 100 years old in 2017, which is a legacy worth noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.215.99.34 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT to University of Pretoria. Not all faculties merit their own page Gbawden (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article was previously speedied at University of Pretoria Faculty of Theology as nominated by Train2104. Cabayi (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to University of Pretoria. Not notable - turning 100 certainly doesn't confer notability. It's not even among the most notable of UP's faculties. The article is sourced entirely by the faculty's own web pages - except from one page from UMich which makes no mention of UP. The list of external wikilinks to irrelevant wikipages is particularly jarring. The only possible nugget of interest is the association of the faculty to various churches - but which university these days doesn't arrange some kind of membership or accreditation for its graduates in the relevant professional bodies. I'm particularly unimpressed by the authors bad faith attempt to conceal the prior article at University of Pretoria Faculty of Theology by recreating it at Theology and Religion, while still referring it as FoT within the article. If this is the level of paid editing I hope for their client's sake that they give refunds. Cabayi (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with other wikipedians. Redirect it to University of Pretoria.  M A A Z   T A L K  04:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Downs[edit]

Alan Downs (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. Edwardx (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. The claim that a book by him is a "leading book" needs to be better supported than one reference to one magazine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Puder-York[edit]

Marilyn Puder-York (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 businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree. Nothing in the way of coverage. Lots of no WP:RS, on blogs and affiliate sites. Lots of the refs are mere mentions of her name. scope_creep (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Faust[edit]

Mark Faust (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. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I could only find trivial mentions in independent sources such as this and this. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be Linkedin. With the number of articles on non-notable business consultants we have, I think we have failed in stopping that. We need stronger safe gaurds against people creating articles on themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Renze[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual. I can't find sources which get us even close to meeting WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk)

• Delete Two papers and no citations means that there's no way to passing WP:PROF. Nothing I can find in the smattering of sources adds up to notability by any other standard. Search results find self-published material, copies of his own autobio blurb, the occasional interview or mention that don't provide much information about him or indication of what-Wikipedia-considers-Notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The claim of course authorship in the article would fall under WP:PROF#C4, but existence or even popularity of an online course is not the same as notability for it, and we have no evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 0 citations. Agricola44 (talk) 15:31, 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 merge to Kanki, Uttar Dinajpur#Education. Per User:IamNotU and others. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Public School, Kanki[edit]

Evergreen Public School, Kanki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable primary school. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable primary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Uttar Dinajpur district, which has no mention. This will improve the article (WP:ATD-M). See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the RfC that people so delightful chooses to ignore. And so clearly states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a relevant argument. The Banner talk 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument here is not WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but WP:ATD-M, a perfectly valid argument that Wikipedia is better served in many cases by a merge/redirect of a non-notable article than a permanent delete. Doing a bold merge in uncontroversial cases like this can save unnecessary debate at AfD. There's no prohibition against a "see also" to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and WP:NSCHOOL does just that. It provides relevant information about current consensus, including a prominent summary and link to the rfc. The rfc found that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can't be used as an argument for inherent notability of secondary schools that fail WP:GNG, but we all agree that this school is not notable. "Delete per the rfc" seems in fact to be an invalid counter-argument, since the rfc outcome has nothing to say about delete vs. merge of non-notable schools. If anything, there is significant support in the rfc discussion for merging in general, and I believe that the custom of redirecting primary schools to parent articles remains a valid practice, supported by the WP:ATD-M policy and the WP:RPURPOSE guideline. The information in the article is verifiable, and appears to have a reasonably reliable source, so it meets WP:FAILORG. I'd be happy to hear any arguments against redirects for primary schools, based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as I'm not aware of any. --IamNotU (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kanki, Uttar Dinajpur#Education per WP:ATD-M. Non-notable. I have just added the school's name to that article, I think that's all that's needed for now, so a blank-and-redirect can be done, keeping the page's history for future reference. --IamNotU (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. (as suggested). On the basis of the schools compromise, which still does have support despite the confusing rfc. Secondary schools are almost always treated as notable; primary and intermediate schools not. That simple rule avoids contentious AfDs. Please notice it does not refer to the concept of whether or not they are notable--for a boarding school I or someone in the country of the school probably could find references if we needed to, but the compromise means I do not have to look--if there's nothing obviously notable we can just merge/delete. (fwiw, the rfc said nothing about primary schools--it just said that there was no consensus to change the practice of keeping secondary schools, and no consensus to merely refer to schooloutcomes--if we thought that coherent, we could deduce from it there is no consensus to treat primary schools as non-notable, but I thinks it's fair to both sides to go on as before.) DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only users arguing to keep are a sock, the article's author, and somebody with an extremely small editing history. More to the point, none of them made any policy-based arguments why this should be kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Brooks Show[edit]

The Michael Brooks Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable podcast. Doesn't past WP:GNG or WP:WEB Sources are pretty much youtube, twitter and other social media links, or articles that aren't talking about the podcast itself. Couldn't find any significant coverage on web either. Questionable notability for the host's article as well, but podcast I definitely don't think passes our notability guidelines. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is ridiculous. This is a significant podcast with over 1000 supporters on Patreon, and substantially more subscribers and viewers. A cursory review of the pages sources show more than social media sources. This recommendation is without basis.- Citationsaurus (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patreon supporters or subscribers/viewers do not contribute to notability on their own. I did review the sources, and a lot of the non social media/podcast links are simply links to biographies of the guest, and like I said in nomination, don't even talk about the podcast itself.

Also, as I mentioned on your talk page, please in the future, don't simply create an account and blank an afD page. These need to stay up for the duration of the process, and then an admin will close it when the time comes. Thank you WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - although the podcast has a somewhat substantial following, it fails WP:GNG. --Kirbanzo (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Please note, Citationsaurus is a sock account set up purely for the purpose of contesting this AfD. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am a new editor on here and I made the page in question as I felt it would be better served as a separate page than as an add on to my original page article, I am willing to change this and just add to the original article which is more than adequately sourced for notability if this is what the consensus of editors agree. I am new and am trying to take on board all criticism and have taken the past week to review the guidelines stated. I do feel I meet them, I have included sources to back up the notability, sources from a variety of different places, obviously because of the nature of it being an online podcast, some of the sources are going to be only online ones too. This is a fairly new podcast but one that is growing quickly and is already significant in terms of audience, I am writing as a fan not in any paid interest or link to the show. I am willing to keep improving the article and have more sources to now add to it as citations and will continue to take on board any constructive comments. Thank you. Claireliontamer (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We're not a WP:FANPAGE host, which is what this article reads as. What the hell is the pyramid and is being sent there bad? Why do I have to pay more to listen to a 'post-game' part of the show? Why is there a part of this podcast that's only available to paid subscribers? It isn't on the radio, and 1,000 Patreon supporters isn't getting anywhere near what even a brokered Sunday morning polka show on radio gets as far as listenership. GNG is far from passed here, and since the podcast seems to be a loss leader to get people to buy the paywall stuff, this show isn't easily accesible enough to gain GNG or N any time soon. Nate • (chatter) 06:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a well-sourced article about a podcast with regular listeners. The article can most certainly be edited towards more neutral language where it may be necessary. Those who believe the article should be deleted on this basis would best be reminded that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Michael J. Brooks, which is currently pretty scrawny as biographies go. bd2412 T 21:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Silverfern Group[edit]

The Silverfern Group (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:CORP yet another advitorial added by some misguided soul who thinks this is Facebook John from Idegon (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I searched several news archives and couldn't find any in-depth independent coverage of this company. Toohool (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in non-English press (ie Execc News Institutional, www.fundresearch.de, Portfolio Institutionell, as cited in the current article). Organization operates at an international level, and is covered by international press, so appears to meet WP:CORP.136.0.98.22 (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)— 136.0.98.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • Comment: None of the three links given by 136.0.98.22 above appear to mention this firm by name. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The company is mentioned in these articles, as cited on the The Silverfern Group page: [42],[43], [44]136.0.98.189 (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)— 136.0.98.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to passing mentions, routine corporate news, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Gandhi[edit]

Vikram Gandhi (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)

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's true the coverage is here and there but there's a lot of it for a wide variety of roles as an investment exec as well as the ex-husband of a very high profile and notable philanthropist. Ine of their daughters made headlines. His fund launch was fairly recent but there's some coverage on top of all his other work over the years. I think he's worth including and meets guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That someone's former spouse is notable has no bearing, see WP:NOTINHERITED. If you can find WP:SIGCOV, point us to it, or add it to the article. Edwardx (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then show some sources that establish notability without WP:NOTINHERITED. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a promo page on an unremarkable CEO. Being chief executive for nn companies (VSG Capital Advisors and also founded Asha Impact) is almost always GNG / ANYBIO fail, and this is the case here. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with Coffman. Lots of non WP:RS references. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• He is a popular subject expert in the media who has been covered by prominent Indian publications such as Live Mint, Hindu Business Line and VC Circle If you Please read his recent article published Huffingtonpost. Vikram Gandhi sets up own investment bank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxanamathew (talk • contribs) 08:49, 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 To Draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barlow (soccer)[edit]

Tom Barlow (soccer) (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)

Deprodded – original rationale was "Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG." PriceDL (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for deprodding – "Maybe WP:TOOSOON but as likely to meet WP:FOOTY in the not-too-distant future would prefer moving to Draft or Userspace rather than deletion." PriceDL (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is a discussion over here that addresses the concerns for deletion and the keeps. I'm in the boat that this meets WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG because of the notability of the MLS SuperDraft, and his national recognitions, which go beyond routine coverage. Cobyan02069 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft (or userfy) with no prejudice against opposite move. Currently, fails WP:CRYSTAL. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NCOLLATH and while we are talking a bit of Crystal for WP:NFOOTBALL, he meets WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and despite claims that the subject meets WP:GNG, nobody has added any sources to the article that are not WP:ROUTINE or WP:PRIMARY to demonstrate this is the case. I'm not convinced his success in being drafted is enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH either. Jellyman (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (to all) - simply pointing to a policy isn't a sufficient argument. It needs to be either clear from context (i.e. pointing at WP:CRYSTAL) or otherwise explained. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy Clear the player is heading in the right direction if he has signed to New York Red Bulls, but unless he makes his debut this page shouldn't be live as he quite clearly fails NFooty. He clearly fails GNG at the moment also. Govvy (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG per Cobyan and NZFC Quidster4040 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per Govvy and WP:TOOSOON, wait until he has played a professional match or until some other notable event occurs. Jay eyem (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is WP:NCOLLATH actually an appropriate guideline for footballers? Why is playing for a college soccer team in the US any different to playing for youth teams of professional clubs in other countries (which wouldn't confer notability)? Number 57 11:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - technically, it's much more likely the 'football' referred to there is American Football and not rest-of-the-world-except-Canada-and-a-few-others-Football. Anyway, the coverage I find quickly with Google does not appear to constitute "national media attention as an individual, not just as a player". Player has also neither won a national award or been inducted in a hall of fame. Therefore, WP:NCOLLATH does not apply and we should stick to other criteria. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft space/userfy - I'm going to make the same argument I made for Brian White (soccer). This article should not have been written yet - there's no significant media coverage so fails WP:GNG, and since he hasn't played at the major level yet, it's WP:TOOSOON. That being said, the best solution to preserve this work is to move to draftspace with instructions to not resubmit until after he plays a professional game. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft or Userfy untill WP:NFOOTY is passed which will also generate extra coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 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 Most, Keep some. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, XFDcloser seems to have eated my original closing statement. The gist was that despite the WP:TRAINWRECK potential, we did get good agreement on most of those. I'm going to keep just those that were called out in any way for special treatment, and delete the rest. For the ones I kept, WP:NPASR applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lithuanian Grammy Award winners and nominees[edit]

List of Lithuanian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a single item list, which is insufficient to justify a stand-alone list. The list could be easily replaced with a statement in the parent article for the artist. Dan arndt (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (as above):

List of Armenian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Azerbaijani Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Belgian Grammy Award winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Beninese Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Bulgarian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Cameroonian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Cape Verdean Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Chilean Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Chinese Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Colombian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Croatian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Danish Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Ecuadorian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Dominican Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Finnish Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of German Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Greek Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Guatemalan Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Hungarian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Iranian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Irish Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Israeli Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Jamaican Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Japanese Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Latvian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Lebanese Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Malian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Mongolian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Moroccan Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of New Zealand Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Nigerian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Norwegian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Panamanian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Pakistani Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Peruvian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Puerto Rican Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Sri Lankan Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Syrian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Russian Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Swedish Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Taiwanese Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Uruguayan Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Venezuelan Grammy Award winners and nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the other point to note is that Gabriela Lena Frank is an American not Lithuanian. Dan arndt (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all along with, as I know that you know, List of Beninese Grammy Award winners and nominees, which I nominated on the same grounds under its own discussion. To repeat my rationale there, "It seems odd to have a list article with a single entry. Further, given that there's only one person on this list, I suspect that there are no sources to support the notability, such as would satisfy WP:LISTN, of the compiling of all [X-ish] winners and nominees of Grammy Awards into a list." And all the more for the Lithuanian. Good grief. The title of the article isn't "List of Grammy Award nominees with Lithuanian fathers" Largoplazo (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just edited that list as I would edit any list that I found to contain an item that didn't meet the inclusion criterion: I removed the item from the list. So now it's a list with zero items. Largoplazo (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo: you may wish to do the same for List of Peruvian Grammy Award winners and nominees, as it also relates to Frank's parents not her.Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per above. Renata (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]