Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday April 28 (Sun) April 27 (Sat) April 26 (Fri) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 15 June	17 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Diego[edit]

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

Lacking depth of coverage. Seems their first restaurants are yet to open, so WP:TOOSOON _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are articles like the 2022 FIFA World Cup which are yet not happening currently, so why not this article as well? ^talk 00:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 world cup has attracted wide media coverage. There has been a bidding contest, stadiums are being built, etc. and chances are, given the global size of the world cup, it will happen. Unfortunately, business proposals come and go. Unless notability can be shown with depth of coverage in reliable media, this is too soon. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 22:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this passes WP:NCORP. Renata (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Maybe if it takes off it will meet notability, but for now it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP as well as GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 05:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CarTube[edit]

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

This concept has received practically zero coverage beyond a few news articles and doesn't appear to be a serious proposal. –dlthewave ☎ 21:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apart from coverage of their initial announcement (mostly suggesting this borders on crazy [1][2]), there's no independent coverage, nor any sign it is in development. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for being daft, as per this media piece, which says it all really. I don't think that's sufficient in-depth notice for this page to remain, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to be serious, if something new comes up it can be recreated, but for now it's useless. Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Defiants[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a WP:YAMB, except from the pre-MySpace era. The article fails WP:BAND; they did get inducted into a Hall of Fame, but only a local one which doesn't have a Wikipedia article, therefore conferring little in the way of notability. None of the band members are notable for their musical careers; Mike Shaw was apparently a heart surgery patient, again, this doesn't make his band notable. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderift[edit]

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

Article fails General notability guideline with no third party citations, but does not quite qualify for A7 Xevus11 (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does it seem that, especially near the beginning of the article, this article reads almost like an advertisement?Vorbee (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. One of the major contributors appears to be a founder (username Zburau, listed founder as Zachary Burau), so that sounds right. Not worth cleaning up while the article is PFD though.Xevus11 (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Native advertising about a non-notable company. MER-C 19:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have started a COI notice for one of the primary authors.
Delete. Seed/round-1 startups are rarely notable. BEFORE here shows some 5 news items. Doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH and seems promotional.Icewhiz (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Weston[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, has one credit and few cites, bio is self-puffery Karmasabtich (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing shows anything about her work makes her even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sourcing is a problem for sure, and there is a stark difference between many of these articles, both in sheer content (sourced or otherwise) and quantity/quality of sources. Consensus is that these are notable topics, and that lack of sourcing is indicative of lack of sourcing, not lack of sources. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in Singapore[edit]

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

This article, and the following 20+ articles, seem to be simply collections of news events with little long-standing notability, which violates WP:NOTNEWS. Many are not even sourced and have not been for years. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've only included up to 1990 since those are the only articles I've looked through so far. The full list is at List of years in Singapore, which links to years well into the 1950s. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are part of the series of Category:2018 by country articles, detailing notable events that happen in each country. Issues about sourcing are not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. And I'm against deleting just one of the "year in xyz". We should delete all of them or none of them... Christian75 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : WP:NOTNEWS doing battle with WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not touching this; not with a light-year pole. I had my monthly share of consensus-against-policy handbags. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought you were braver than I to touch that one. Nosebagbear (talk)

Plots of movies; years in places; and lists of thingamajigs. They're here on Wikipedia so that some of us who're dying to excrete their precious very own majestic personal work can legitimately do so.

-The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Given your (re)-triggering of the school dispute I think you might just be a glutton for punishment. Nosebagbear ;)

Being a Wikipedian involved in community interaction is being a glutton for punishment I recently learned fist hand. -The Gnome (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you two, get a room!..

Delete per WP:TNT; these articles are almost entirely unsourced and have no clear inclusion criteria. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Unsourced content can be deleted. Jane Dawson (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Unsourced content can be sourced or deleted. ~ Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2012 and keep the rest. These are the ones that are entirely unreferenced. Removing all unsourced content from these articles would lead to Wikipedia:Page blanking. The guideline recommends deletion in such cases. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we should only be deleting if it's impossible to source, which seems unlikely. If the pages with any references can stay, then logically they all should stay since no doubt there are refs. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" (WP:CHALLENGE), not just material that is patently unverifiable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but it isn't usually an AfD approach - we should only delete when we can't preserve, and if blank pages due to no supported points is the sole reason to delete the pages then that isn't much of an issue as it can be repaired so easily. Better to determine whether any other del reason warrants their removal and only later consider that approach. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so easy, WP:SOFIXIT? That some of these articles are entirely unsourced was part of the nominator's rationale. Hence, I think it's safe to assume that the unreferenced content is "challenged or likely to be challenged", i.e. needs to be sourced or needs to go by deletion. But it wasn't the only reason given in the nomination or agreed by others here. WP:NOTNEWS was also given, and I agree that we should determine if it applies. I don't have an opinion on that, however. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned articles have been sourced for the more notable events (done 1 reference per article for speed). -Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Category:Years of the 20th century by country. If you want to suggest wiping all of that, then you need to discuss it at the proper place, not delete just one nation. Dream Focus 06:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and make a better attempt to populate. Deb (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why single out Singapore? Category:2018 by country has 244 subcategories and 153 entries. Narky Blert (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These look super useful after a glance. ₪RicknAsia₪ 06:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Tudor[edit]

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

not yet notable author . one book , just published, with unenthusiastic reviews, all en DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete publishing a book is not a default sign of notability. That is the only measure of notability that would make Tudor notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick gNews search shows 5 reviews in major daily papers [3], some positive, and a simple google search shows that Penguin has announced two novels schheduled for publication in 2019. Threre is also an article in a local paper about a positive review tweeted by Stephen King.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per available book reviews found via source searches, meets point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, with the author's work having received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Some of the reviews are more extensive than others, but overall, meets point #3. See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep on account of multiple and extensive coverage of both subject and her work in reliable sources, as the search by Northamerica1000 above indicates. Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Small, irrelevant remark: Most of the reviews I found to be rather positive. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tuchman[edit]

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

Notability and promotional concerns. I'm not sure any amount of interviews about him being photographed on the NYSE floor will make him notable; there's certainly several articles of that sort Washington Post, Buzzfeed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep I think he’s noteworthy, not just because of the numerus articles about him. But rather because his face and photo are somewhat of an institution and probably well recognized by anyone who ever reads anything about the stock market or Wall Street. As the article in the Washington post starts “If you have a pulse and own a stock, you probably have seen Peter Tuchman’s face.”! In fact I created the page because after seeing his photo so many times in articles, I tried researching about him and wondered how come there is no Wikipedia page on a person whose photo is so widely used and recognized. Bloger (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since subject, on the basis of provided sources, comfortably and verifiably meets the criteria for notability. -The Gnome (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the notability is an unorthodox one, but there's plenty of coverage. "Most photographed stock broker" is a sufficient claim of significance to sustain an article, which is supported by sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social causation vs downward drift[edit]

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

Essay and original research and synthesis; apparently somebody's school paper about the intersection of two theories, turned into an "article". Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename. This is titled and structured as an essay rather than an encyclopaedia article, but the actual content seems fine. It's well referenced, written from a neutral point of view, and I'm not seeing much if any WP:SYNTH. It could just be renamed to something like socioeconomic status and mental health, which is certainly a notable topic [4][5][6][7], and given a thorough copyedit for encyclopaedic tone. – Joe (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this essay, created by a single-purpose account, possibly as an educational project, because its subject lacks claims to notability. Where are the search hits with the article's title? -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to dozens of high quality sources on this topic above. There's also a reasonable number of GScholar hits for the specific terms in the title [8][9], though "social selection" seems to be preferred over "downward drift" (understandably...) [10]. Did you actually look? – Joe (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. And, yes, I "did look." What you're saying is the same as saying, "Hey, my neighbor is called 'Atlantic Washington' and he's notable because you get tons of online hits for 'Atlantic' and for 'Washington'."

Your title is not 'Social selection.' Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. At all. This article is about two competing hypotheses (social causation and downward drift/social selection) that explain a phenomenon (the link between social class and mental illness). The links that I've provided above show that the phenomenon is notable and that both hypotheses are individually notable. We don't keep or delete articles based purely on keyword searches for their title. You have to actually read the article and apply some common sense. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will make is as simple as possible: Let "subject A versus subject B" be subject C. In that case, you cannot argue that, because A and B are individually notable, subject C is also notable. Subject C has to be on its own independently notable, which means, in our case, that the subject "social causation vs downward drift" altogether must be notable; not the one and the other party separately. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't argue that. "Subject C" is notable overall. "Subject A" and "subject B" also happen to be independently notable. You are arguing semantics over the title, but titles are easily changed. – Joe (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "semantics" here. You have to demonstrate that the subject is independently notable per Wikipedia standards, under any variant of the contested article's current title. It truly does not get any simpler. -The Gnome (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll refer you one last time to the sources I've provided above, that demonstrate it. I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring them, or what, but there doesn't seem much point in continuing to discuss it. – Joe (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Here's the scalpel work on those sources:

Primo, they're all searches, i.e. the brute result of an online search. Your links do not take us to a stand-alone piece of text; we're supposed to either admire how many hits your searches dig up, or perhaps to examine each text in them ourselves. But that is NOT how things work here, because it is you who has to provide the specific and non-generic evidence of notability.

Segundo, what were the words used for those searches anyway?

See what you did there? You used some of the results of those searches to create a text about the link between social causation and downward drift. You showed us how you put the article together, even if in such a crude form, rather than offer a justification for the uncontested, clear, independent notability of the subject in the title.

The search, incidentally, for "downward drift" is a hoot; results include mostly unrelated items such as Markov chain models of the downward drift of particles.

And the article is not even presenting properly what it's trying to say! The text implies there's a causal link between socioeconomic status and mental status, yet you titled the piece as if these are adversary or opposite causes. (X versus Z).

Essentially, you provide as evidence of notability the sources for your text even when they're about subjects unrelated to the subject at hand. Take #7: it's all about the causes behind people advancing in life or falling behind, e.g. peer influence, perceptions of social support ("data came from a sample of victims of natural disaster in Mexico"), etc.

For the umpteenth time, then, Wikipedia is not the place to publicize essays, no matter how well intentioned, beautifully presented, and well sourced. Wikipedia is all about sources; for the larger part of a text, it's the sources that we are quoting or paraphrasing. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please note that the above is not a claim that the causal link between socioeconomic status and mental status is nonexistent, weak, strong, or anything else. I'm not taking sides on the subject itself, although, as it happens I know a thing or two about it. All I'm arguing is whether this essay merits a place in the main space of the encyclopaedia. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write this article, The Gnome, and without wishing to toot my own horn, after participating in several hundred AfDs and closing several hundred more, I think I have a fairly good idea of "how things work here".

Case in point, the onus is in fact on those nominating or !voting to delete to demonstrate that there is valid grounds for deletion (e.g. the topic of the article isn't notable), not on the creator of the article or those !voting keep to spoon-feed you a case for notability. I linked to search results that show ample sources on this topic. I am not saying that all the results are relevant—clearly there are some completely unrelated papers in there—but many are and I don't think it's too much to ask to scan the abstracts. If you really insist, I can link to the individual papers I think are relevant, but at this point I'm not sure whether you're actually disputing the notability, or just lecturing me on my perceived failure to come up with an appropriate title for an article that I have never even edited?

Wikipedia is not the place to publish essays, but we don't delete articles because they are essays. We improve them into something encyclopaedic, or leave it for someone else to do so. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have said enough. If, as you correctly say, "Wikipedia is not the place to publish essays," then we delete essays. This is what both logic and Wikipedia commands. If it so happens that the text under the AfD process has value (it's about some clearly notable subject, etc), we either send it to the draft space to see if it can be salvaged, or we improve it speedily. O/wise it's blow up time. I now rest my case. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four Angry Men[edit]

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

While there is some coverage in social media related and fringe, this seems to lack depth or persistence. Contents added under "Roster" is sourced from blogs. Unclear where the results are sourced from. Those poorly sourced items have been removed many times and re-added without commentary. The article had also been moved to draft Draft:Four Angry Men to incubate, only to be recreated in main space seconds later. Propose deletion on both for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just because you are not a Chinese web user. I've been watched 4AM's lives and followed their microblog for a long time, the roster and the results are all copied from the official wechat & weibo account, so I can promise that they are all true. I didn't put the result resources on it because some tournament don't have any official website. So please stop removing the contents okay? I'm a 4AM fan and I know them more than you. I won't create a page of team that I don't know.^talk 02:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to invite you to see another Chinese E-sports team Royal Never Give Up, then should we both be deleted? ^talk 02:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless stronger evidence of notability is forthcoming – at the moment this does not pass our notability requirements for companies and organisations. I regret that I don't read Chinese, so cannot look for better sources myself; please ping me here if more are found. As for articles about other teams, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuka Ekweogwu[edit]

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

Nothing in depth on subject matter and just passing mentions. WP:NACTOR not satisfied, generally it's WP:TOOSOON Edidiong (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to have been the lead character in a major film.I think itwould have been fair for the nomination to have mentioned that. DGG ( talk ) 12:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has two prominent roles in feature films so passes WP:NACTOR criteria 1 (only one criteria needed), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:ACTOR. No harm reminding ourselves of its criteria : The persona must have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. None of them are met. The single claim to fame is the lead role in a film claimed to be a "major" one without evidence to that, and whose article in Wikipedia was created by a single-purpose account. It smells of promotion, as well. -The Gnome (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the films he appeared in are "notable" for the purposes of WP:ACTOR; they do have Wikipedia pages but not much else suggesting importance or significance, and I doubt Until Midnight would survive AfD today (though it's probably worth waiting until it's released at this point). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NACTOR and GNG. Quis separabit? 20:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, the subject fails WP:NACTOR.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Cravit[edit]

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

As an author, Cravit appears to be not notable per WP:NAUTHOR as there has been very little coverage or commentary on his work in independent, reliable sources. While apparently a successful businessman, the only sources I can find do not convey notability; YouTube videos, LinkedIn profiles and the like. This is the only coverage in a major publication of anything he's said and I don't think that passes the bar for significant coverage. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. However, if it is kept, it will need to be rewritten to remove POV. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is advertorial, not encyclopedic, and neither businesspeople nor authors get an automatic free pass over our notability standards for businesspeople or authors just because their own primary source web presence technically verifies that they exist. A person needs to be the subject of reliable source media coverage, in sources other than his own employer's self-published content about itself, to earn inclusion here — but none of the sources here are cutting it in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is bad enough that we have an inordinately large number of articles on living people, and that 1986 is the year we have the most articles on people born in that year. We do not need to add fuel to the extremes of presentism by having an article on a person who mouths off about how things are unprecedented and unlike the past, how people can't afford to retire, yadda yadda yadda, without any actual perspective on the past, and just sort of taking his anecdotal impressions of how things were 20 years ago and claiming they have changed. This is lousy, lousy scholarship and we definately do not need to engage in promoting it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SMP0328. (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA[edit]

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

This is simply the companion case to Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. This article should be deleted or demoted to being a redirect to Murphy. SMP0328. (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will happily redirect, as long as no one deletes. Rhadow (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with converting this article to being a redirect. It's basically the same as a delete. SMP0328. (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then retract this AfD, SMP0328.. A close read will show that I suggested a redirect a year ago. Rhadow (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is changed to a redirect, I will retract. SMP0328. (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMP0328.:The article can't be redirect until the AfD is closed.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- as per above.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Amson[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator A one to two-year mayor of Williamsburg, Virginia. Due to the history of the town he has been more well-documented than most mayors of this era. For instance there are some source materials about him and his buying of land in the town: [11]. He also had a plant named after him. [12] That article along with this [13] and this [14] were the only way of verifying he was mayor, though, and the latter source notes not much is known about him.

I'm bringing this to AfD because it's a clear WP:NPOL fail and the available sources are scarce and may involve some WP:OR to clean up, but due to the fact Williamsburg was the capital at this time, due to the fact a ton of historical research has been conducted in the city, I'm not sure it's as clear of a delete as your typical poorly sourced/unsourced small-town mayor article, but I want to get consensus before I improve it (if we keep it.) Note I am currently voting to delete it under WP:NPOL and WP:GNG without prejudice for recreation. SportingFlyer talk 18:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Genus plant Amsonia was named after the subject of the article because he medically diagnosed then-Gen. George Washington with a cold, for which Washington feared was tuburculosis (or consumption). It is cited in multiple history, e.g. Washington: A Life and floral books. I added the plant naming to the article. The subject's land holdings should be included as well. Easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment works for me. I'll improve the article. Thanks! SportingFlyer talk 15:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Davis[edit]

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

Fails NACTOR. None of the references discuss her in detail, or at all. Otherwise, they are associated sources. Created by a promotional editor. Maybe TOOSOON, but maybe never. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of MCH and AIDS[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is how I found the journal article. I removed references that did not even mention the journal as well as trivial indexing services, per WP:JWG. After that, not much was left... --Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is one of the more vague and confusing essays on notability. There is no indication that this is a predatory journal. I'd like to see what the page creator has to say about why this journal justifies an article. Also, does the publishing organization justify a page that this can be merged too? Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The publishing organization is as obscure as the journal itself. We don't have a single independent source on this journal, just some all-inclusive databases like DOAJ. And if you don't like NJournals (which was designed to make it easier for academic journals to cross the notability bar), I'm fine with looking at GNG, which is failed even more spectacularly... As for predatory journals, nobody ever said this was a predatory journal (and it or its publisher are not on Beall's now-defunct lists), but it is not enough for a journal to be "not predatory" to merit inclusion. Of course, we could try to do away with GNG or WP:N, but I don't think that proposal would gain much traction. The article creator is a SPA, their only edits are this article and an edit to a reference to this journal (which, I fear, would not meet WP:MEDRS either. --Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 19:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this journal meets the Wikipedia's criteria for notability of academic journal, the journal is indexed in some notable journal indexing database such as PubMed Central and the Directory of open access journals. In DOAJ the journal has earned a green check which indicates that it has been reviewed and evaluated by independent auditors. I learned that DOAJ is not an all-indexing database, as they conduct an expert review of applicant journals to ensure that they meet their publishing guidelines. I have updated the page with more information referencing my data sources. — --Brownmagnus (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownmagnus (talk • contribs) 05:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC) — Brownmagnus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Any legit OA journal gets into DOAJ, so that is not a mark of notability. Any legit OA journal in the field of biomedical sciences gets into PubMed Central, so that is not a mark of notability either. As for the stuff that you added to the article: indexing in GScholar is trivial, as they index everything. Index Copernicus and CiteFactor are fake rating services. Two citations in books is pathetic, nothing less. Citations in Wikipedia articles are meaningless, anybody can add those (and, indeed, diligent journal editors often do so to increase the visibility of their journal). None of that stuff belongs in an article on a scientific journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After the addition of a lot of material to the article by Brownmagnus (who, by the way, declares a COI on their user page), I just performed another cleanup (to explain to Brownmagnus the rationale behind each edit, I performed a series of small edits). For the sake of transparency, this is the cumulative edit. --Randykitty (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randikitty, complete fail of WP:NJOURNALS/WP:GNG. The keep arguments above are meritless. This journal is literally indexed nowhere MIAR: 2161-8674 (save for DOAJ/PMC, which indexes everything OA/everything OA in medicine that isn't predatory [and even then they still include predatory stuff]), and with roughly 5 articles being cited more than 10 times through its life (now 6+ years), this journal made pretty much no/very little impact in medicine. Notability is more than just "is this journal predatory?". It's "did this journal make an demonstrable impact?" Could be a case WP:TOOSOON, but right now the answer to that second question is no, it did not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find multiple secondary in-depth sources about this journal, so it fails to meet WP:GNG notability guidelines. It's a real journal with no indications of being predatory and is indexed in DOAJ and Pubmed, but these are not selective enough to confer notability according to WP:NJournals. I also could not find it in the APA list of AIDS journals or Scimago list of infectious disease journals or other specialty lists. I don't see any good merge targets for the basic verifiable information we have about the journal. All of which unfortunately leads to a conclusion of delete. --Mark viking (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As others have said, I'm not finding secondary in-depth coverage. The only databases mentioning it are more or less WP:INDISCRIMINATE and won't satisfy WP:GNG for journals. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FiSH (organisation)[edit]

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

I prodded this for lack of notability. The prod was removed as sources were added, but they do not do anywhere near enough to establish notability. One is a link to the organisation’s site. Another is a passing mention in the Daily Mail, which anyway is not a reliable source for notability. Only the third is an acceptable source but it is a local one, a local newsletter. Per WP:AUD local coverage is not evidence of notability for an organisation.

Again, as I wrote in my proposed deletion, local charitable organisations are very common. They exist throughout the UK, many in each town and city, and the vast majority will not be notable. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the following serves as ample evidence of notability: this charity has just been awarded (1 June 2018) The Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service 2018 in recognition of their outstanding voluntary work in the community. This award is also known as "the MBE for charities". Mrs nerd (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- it was the winner of a Queen’s Award. As according to the source the government handed out 250 this year it is not that special an award. And it needs proper sourcing, the government’s own website is not a reliable source for government announcements. It needs e.g. a news organisation to notice it, which they would surely do if it were a major award.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- also if it is known as "the MBE for charities", having an MBE does not make a person notable. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Monk MBE.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A noble cause but the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to The Pin-Ups. Sandstein 05:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mondo C. Castro[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO independently of The Pin-Ups. His new band is not yet notable per WP:Articles for deletion/The Beautiful Letdown (band). He has had a few roles presenting television and radio, but I can't find significant coverage of him in multiple WP:RS outside of passing mentions in connection with his first band: all I could find was this interview, already cited in the article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pin-Ups (which by the way is in dire need of clean-up). I do not doubt that the gentleman has worked in many fields and has been in a few bands, but the Pin-Ups are his only endeavor to be noticed by reliable and independent media sources. This article is uncomfortably close to self-promotion or his CV/resume. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Voice News[edit]

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

PROD removed. This is a publication that exists, but merely showing up in Google News searches does not make it notable. I don't see this passing WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:WEB in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of detail coverage in independent third sources - some of which I've added in the ref. Not just independent sources from Google News but Google Books as well as evident in my edit, and that's just some of the sources I could be bothered to add at the time. If it was not notable it wouldn't have received such coverage. It is one of the old Black American publications and one of the first to have an online presence at least within its area.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks like barely any coverage at all to me, not "significant coverage". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThirdHome[edit]

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

s good deal of publicity. , but all of it is based on a single advertising campaign. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete A small business. Refs are usual PR stuff, no indications of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, I have added new references to the article, and I have also updated the text by adding new information from 2018. I want to ask some questions:

Articles in Travel & Leisure, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The Times, The New York Post, Fox News, The Telegraph, The Independent ... are not enough coverage in reliable media?

Why do you say that refs are usual PR stuff? They are articles signed in recognized media.Richard Ketter (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as examples, the Forbes ref is a pure press release. Forbes publishes real news and analysis, but it also publishes press releases and company listings. The Independent is likewise a press release. The various materials about look for someone to visit the proposed properties are all press releases. The Times is a little different--it's an interview with the founder where he says whatever he pleases. Such interviews are no more reliable sources for notability than anything else he says about his own company. It'sa little scandalous that we can no longer trust even thebest newspapers to adoivd article that amount to advertorials, but that one in The Times is a classic example of the genre. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks, there are 19 references, all are from reliable sources and there are tons of articles on Wikipedia based on these sources. It's obvious that these news websites like Forbes, Times which you mentioned only, gathers information from different sources which could be press releases. e.g The White house doesn't call these news websites and supply information, they just do press releases and the whole world writes about the story. Similarly, that contest went viral around the world with a huge media coverage and I think they aren't press releases because they are not the words of the company but written by independent media sources. I maybe wrong but if something is notable within the industry and is known in different continents within the hospitality industry and being published and discussed in independent sources I think it deserves a space.

When I wrote this, one of your colleague @Jcc: approved the article from the draft, so it means he doesn't know about Wikipedia policies? Or it vary from person to person? Or it was notable at that time but not now? After reading WP:GNG I think it clearly meets the requirement. Richard Ketter (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)2[reply]

Keep Yes, thank you for the notification. My opinion at the time was that it meets the criteria for inclusion and I still believe that it does, but ultimately the community decides. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP; just a promotional blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's notable within the travel and leisure sector, and I think coverage is in reliable media as per WP:GNG. Mia Watson (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the references are covering is an advertising stunt. And the stunt itself would fall under ONEEVENT. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Article still unsourced = mandatory deletion per WP:V. Sandstein 05:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SEEDS[edit]

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

nn organization tagged unref since 2016 Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Times of India, Hindustan Times. wumbolo ^^^ 14:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These links just mention SEEDS; there is no description of this organization. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it counts toward notability because it has significant coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 20:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may be right here. Still, these refs look more like routine press releases than general, independent discussion of the organization. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood the criteria for notability, Wumbolo. It is not sufficient to have "significant coverage" in sources. The coverage must be through specific and extensive references to the subject, which we cannot find in the articles you cite. (Not to mention that the sources themselves, where the "significant coverage" is found, must be reliable. I'm saying this only for the sake of clarity and completion, since Times of India and the rest are reliable.) -The Gnome (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : If sources that support notability can be found, now is the time to add 'em! -The Gnome (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. The sources offered above are very minor passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Sean Combs. Sandstein 18:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Way Out 2[edit]

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

Back in 2015-16 there was a flurry of news in the hip hop press [15] that Puff Daddy was "working on" this album. After that rush, I can only find one mention of the same thing in the past two years [16]. No confirmed release date or track listing can be found. The advance singles can be discussed in their own independent articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puff Daddy (or whatever his name is these days.) WP:TOOSOON. The first single from it has charted, but sources generally don't even seem to mention an album in the song coverage. Spin back out if it starts to get additional coverage about coming out. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters#Mouth McFadden. Sandstein 05:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mouth McFadden[edit]

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

I think this article should be redirected to List of One Tree Hill characters for the following reasons:
1. It does not cite ANY sources, let alone secondary ones.
2. It is ALL plot summary.
3. It looks like Fancruft.
4. This subject has a more appropriate article here: onetreehill.wikia.com/wiki/Mouth_McFadden Shaneymike (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictonal elements-related deletion discussions. Shaneymike (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters#Julian Baker. Sandstein 05:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Baker[edit]

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

I think this article should be redirected to List of One Tree Hill characters for the following reasons:
1. It does not cite ANY sources, let alone secondary ones.
2. It is ALL plot summary.
3. It looks like Fancruft.
4. This subject has a more appropriate article here: onetreehill.wikia.com/wiki/Julian_Baker Shaneymike (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shaneymike (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictonal elements-related deletion discussions. Shaneymike (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters#Millicent Huxtable. Sandstein 05:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millicent Huxtable[edit]

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

I think this article should be redirected to List of One Tree Hill characters for the following reasons:
1. It does not cite ANY sources, let alone secondary ones.
2. It is ALL plot summary.
3. It looks like Fancruft.
4. This subject has a more appropriate article here: onetreehill.wikia.com/wiki/Millicent_Huxtable Shaneymike (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Michael Peterson (criminal). Which will be changed to redirect to Death of Kathleen Peterson if that article is renamed as proposed. Sandstein 06:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Peterson[edit]

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

Notability; being a murder victim doesn't make you notable. I'd argue that this is already adequately covered in the Michael Peterson article and The Staircase article. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well the Michael Peterson article is also problematic, since most of that is actually about the death of Kathleen and he is not notable outside of the incident either. I'm surprised that these separate biography articles are how the case is covered here. WP:SINGLEEVENT says "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person", and yet we don't even have an article about the "event". I have just requested a move from Michael Peterson to Death of Kathleen Peterson, and I would support redirecting/merging this article to that one. --Loeba (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Kathleen Peterson following sensible proposed move of [[Michael Peterson (criminal) to Death of Kathleen Peterson . The crime is notable, but neither (manslaughter) victim nor husband are notable independent of the crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Death of Kathleen Peterson. Not notable on own. CookieMonster755 ✉ 01:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michael Peterson (criminal) and rename that to Death of Kathleen Peterson, per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Death of Kathleen Peterson as per above comments that the crime is notable but the person is not. Million_Moments (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Kathleen Peterson, following move of husband to "death of".Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hollembeak[edit]

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

Non-notable personality. Diptanshu 💬 17:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little evidence of impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 13:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first two links are to his linkedin profile. The next is to Goodreads, which is a non-reliable user generated source, which has no level of weeding out useful information. The next is just showing a library holds his book, which is not at all a sign of notability. The last is a commercial for sale listing. None of these are the level of sourcing to show that the works are notable, let alone their writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Santa Ana Winds FC season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG; as a non-professional club, the season does not have automatic notability, and the references are all WP:ROUTINE. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:NSEASONS as United Premier Soccer League is an amateur league and not a pro league. Govvy (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:NSEASONS. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Santa Ana Winds FC season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG; as a non-professional club, the season does not have automatic notability, and the references are all WP:ROUTINE. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:NSEASONS as United Premier Soccer League is an amateur league and not a pro league. Govvy (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Santa Ana Winds FC season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG; as a non-professional club, the season does not have automatic notability, and the only reference would qualify as WP:ROUTINE. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:NSEASONS as United Premier Soccer League is an amateur league and not a pro league. Govvy (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Orange County FC season[edit]

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

Second nomination, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Virginia Beach City FC season. Page fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG; as a non-professional club, the season does not have automatic notability, and the page has no references. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:NSEASONS as United Premier Soccer League is an amateur league and not a pro league. Govvy (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Virginia Beach City FC season[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Virginia Beach City FC season. Page fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG; as a non-professional club, the season does not have automatic notability, and the listed references are WP:ROUTINE. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 14:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS Govvy (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Lionsbridge FC season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG; as a non-professional club, the season does not have automatic notability, and the only two references are not WP:INDEPENDENT. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, failing WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability to merit a stand alone page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable search item, routine coverage based on quick Google search. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG failure and WP:NSEASONS failure. As a semi-professional team it doesn't meet the assumed notability of WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. Additionally per WP:ROUTINE, routine coverage is not a sufficient basis for an article. Jay eyem (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Virginia Beach City FC season[edit]

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

Second nomination, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Virginia Beach City FC season. Page fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG; as a non-professional club, the season does not have automatic notability, and the listed references are WP:ROUTINE. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, failing WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Intrauterine growth restriction. Sandstein 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebro-corporal coefficient[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Perhaps redirect to ultrasound, if someone with medical knowledge could fit a paragraph about it in. Pinging User:Doc James for that. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question - this reads like a dictionary definition, so could it be transwikied to Wiktionary?Vorbee (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Intrauterine_growth_restriction. This is what it appear to relate to.[17] Not enough for a stand alone article IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeper Doc James. I can find nothing else online referring to CCC, except for copies of wikipedia, and copies of the page creator's published paper from 2008. Doesn't appear to have become an established (notable) medical term as far as I can tell. So a merge (or a deletion) seem an acceptable prognosis. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IBRIT[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Possibly undisclosed native advertising, given the contribution history of the creator. MER-C 14:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing a recent new company's products and distribution arrangements. The provided sources fall under routine announcements and product listings/reviews; other coverage describes it as "a relatively unknown new brand, but it has made significant progress in the UAE in a short period of time" ([18] (May 2018 report) – via HighBeam (subscription required) ): none of this is sufficient to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indications of significance, no real claim to notability, and lacking the quality sourcing to pass WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Passing mentions will not cut it.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Whether a redirect is appropriate is a matter that can be discussed separately. Sandstein 06:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Bikes[edit]

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mredidiongekong and Scruitineer: Page Guardian Bikes was speedy-delete-tagged for db-corp at 21:48, 5 June 2018‎ by User:Mredidiongekong. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anthony Appleyard Thanks for taking this to AFD, i believe it will help answer and clear some doubts by author as to subject notability. Edidiong (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd actually suggest the article creator to go to the WP:Teahouse for help rather than waiting to have his doubts cleared here. As the article stands I'm minded I'm not prepared to vote a keep but I think I might be on an improved article. I've put some thoughts on the articles talk page … I'd caution the article creator and others improving on the article to rely on my thoughts. Explicit baseline votes and thoughts, suggestions and reasons from AfC reviewer and Speedy nominator welcomed and also their review of any article improvement attempts. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~I'm edited the article lede to emphasise their Children's bicycle is the only child's bicycle to use a single lever for the brakes on both wheels (using the claimed to be safer surestop braking system). Think this is sufficient for a keep vote and this point and I in good faith request nominator(s) reconsider and withdraw at this point or helpfully point out remaining issues.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the existing section ( Single lever two wheel brakes) in the Bicycle brake article. That covers the only aspect that is encyclopedic . The rest is basically an advertisement. The only real alternative is speedy delete as G11. DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The straight redirect would be an issue due to WP:SURPRISE which would lijkely not we overcomable without disrupting the target. The criticisms section could hardly be called be called blatent advertising and had useful content. General lack of support means it is pointless continuing here and it is better for me to withdraw. I find the AfC followed by Speedy completely ridiculous and if we are not prepared to entertain an article on a company producing a design attempting create a safer children's bicycle with a different braking systems and other child orientated features then ... its time to give up. Because of the content I've backed out I've gone back to removing my keep vote.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to give up on trying to find a way to a least mention something of possible significance. The redirect would have been a perfectly reasonable one had you not just now removed the section I suggested linking to at [19]. I've restored it, because I do not think that section too promotional. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Redirect of Guardian Bikes to Bicycle brake because of WP:SURPRISE unless that target section is expanded which would disrupt the target article and might cause a promotion within it; the issue being the target article is already considered overly long. That section is not really adequate ... the one lever braking system may be illegal in some countries for example. There are alternatives I would not oppose but anything I propose if likely to be destroyed anyway so little point. I decided to withdraw what some still regard as my promotional contribution to that article, indeed you say so yourself, though I must admit I choose to repeat 2 cites rather than one (actually a copy/paste error) and I never actually checked what the second was and I might have inadvertently promoted something. Bicycle brakes has over 100 watchers so plently of opportunity for the cyclist community to re-instate that if they wished. On the basis of the promotion should not most of American bike manufacture articles be speedied as well?Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is debatable whether this HuffPost article provides some in-depth information on the company - in my opinion it focuses on the product and not the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. At least two references are required. None of the other references meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it focuses on it is notable - whether the article is specifically about the product, about the company and primarily focusing on product, or about both. Peter James (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if other editors consider the HuffPost reference as meeting the criteria for notability, the article still requires at least one more reference to also meet the criteria before this topic would be seen to be notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other references already in the article, and at least one, Metro, seems to meet the criteria; Gazette Review has significant coverage but I'm unsure of its reliability, and KDVR is unavailable in the UK so I don't know if it meets the criteria. Peter James (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Metro article is not intellectually independent as it is based on an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND. The KDVR video is also not intellectually independent as it is also based on an interview with the founder (and even offers a "special discount") and fails WP:ORGIND. Please be aware that while the quality of the source is important, for references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, it is more important (because it is more difficult) to find references that are intellectually independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is the words of the author; that part should be intellectually independent. Peter James (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I was rewriting the article then I'd be focuing on Guardian Bikes as a brand with a brand infobox ... which would cover seemlessly into any future buyout. The article creator has unusually not made a comment here (though he has tweaked the article which I'd assume was a sort of keep) but I am a little concerned he may have been offput by the words of the speedy nominator. I remain not happy with the article as is ... feeling my previous edit attempt being tagged as blatent advertising ... though the AfC reviewer considered the article non promotional at that point. Of course at AfD all versions need to be considered. The Gazette review goes on to consider progress past the Shark tank program and seems original investigation and scrutiny rather than straight rework of a press release. The Shark Tank program itself, whilst not reliable for some things, gives due diligence to some facts, as does Mark Cuban's due diligence prior to investment. I'm also somewhat minded this [review] seems independent focusing on the brand qualities, albeit perhaps a tad superficial and possibly a bit surprised Islabikes was not mentioned in it ... that being a company I keep coming across in child bike searches and is a similar albeit more established equivalent to Guardian Bikes.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Nine Percent. Sandstein 06:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Linkai[edit]

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. The editor whose username is Z0 13:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - page has been moved to Wang Linkai. ansh 666 22:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability. Abdotorg (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Nine Percent. He is quite famous in China, but has not yet achieved notability independent of the band. If the career paths of Lu Han and Kris Wu are of any guide, he will likely have an independent career in the future. Redirect instead of delete so the article can be resurrected when that happens. -Zanhe (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S10[edit]

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

We will of course have an article on the S10 at some point, but I'm not sure we should have one purely based on leaks, rumours and blogs (even the forbes source is a contributor's blog). WP:CRYSTAL applies here... Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a rumour and leaks website. 344917661X (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Acnetj (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. The device has not been officially announced yet. It’s not even known if it will be called the “Samsung Galaxy S10.” It might be named the “Samsung Galaxy SX.” Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 21:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Has not been officially announced.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If "we will of course have an article on the S10 at some point", we ought to consider at least draftifying this, to avoid having to rewrite the article from scratch next year. James500 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: This article contains no verifiable information. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 05:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL and it is not even mentioned in Samsung Galaxy S series. wumbolo ^^^ 11:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to French colonial empire. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

French colonial wars[edit]

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

No basis as its own article; topic covered by French colonial empire and its individually linked wars. Article severely incomplete, and article creator also copied and pasted the infobox from French conquest of Algeria. SUM1 (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to French colonial empire. The article seems to have been abandoned as an unreferenced stub but the title is a reasonable encyclopaedic topic. Not sure we needed the AfD. – Joe (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect as suggested. We have one sentence that is no anodyne that it is not worth having with a bibliography that might enable one to research the subject, but that is not what is needed in an encyclopedia. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to French colonial empire. It will make a useful redirect.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to French colonial empire. Subject is probably notable standalone, but current article is due for WP:TNT (have one sentence, and an infobox copy pasted).Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to O Channel. Sandstein 06:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O Channel Medan[edit]

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

Article should be merged into O Channel. No sources to support page for O Channel Medan Edidiong (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does the station originate some of its own programming, such as a local news show? If yes, it passes Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and the article should be kept. If it is only a repeater of another station, then it should not have its own article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to O Channel. Appears to just be a regional branch of a larger network. Ajf773 (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kay-Anlog local elections, 2007[edit]

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

Elections for a small village or barangay of a city. Generally nonnotable and has no sources. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any election where the winning candidate wins only a few hundred votes is most certainly noN-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, with no prejudice against WP:USERFICATION.

A clear consensus for deletion of this article from main namespace has occurred at this time, essentially as per WP:NOTCATALOG. That said, several users here have stated that various alternate uses of the content exists ("Some of the more notable bundles would be better merged with the main article... ", "Delete (or possibly userify... ", "I would probably say the ones worth noting would be the first few... ", "It seems like the info is useful and could be saved and transwikied somewhere... "). As such, there is no prejudice in this close for the article's content to be provided via WP:USERFICATION, if anyone asks for userfication for said purposes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humble Bundles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page is currently a indiscriminate set of listing with many games/items failing notability. Some of the more notable bundles would be better merged with the main article but the majority would need to be deleted Jamesbuc (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly userify to strip down to most essential content). With Humble offering two or more weekly bundles, and its monthly service, this starts to become akin to a catalog. I know I likely was involved when this article started, but that was when they only offered a bundle a few times a years, and each bundle got an impressive amount of coverage. Today that simply doesn't happen. I feel there are some parts to this that can be salvaged as suggested by nominator, but I don't know what immediately, hence userification if that can't be figured out during this AFD. --Masem (t) 13:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entire article is a basic fail of WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said when I nominated the category for this information for deletion years ago Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 30, it isn't that hard to get a game included on this. Some news do mention when a game is available cheap, be it a bundle somewhere or alone, but that doesn't mean this list is notable or needed. Also what would anyone do with this information? Can't go back in time and buy something in an old bundle of the past. Dream Focus 04:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The first few bundles drew rather large figures for charity and put some games' source into open source. They are historically significant, but not most of the rest of the bundles since. Hence some value but not enough for a list. --Masem (t) 05:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would probably say the ones worth noting would be the first few, the THQ bundle made shortly before they went under, the first Nintendo and Playstation bundles and a brief mention of when they began doing other bundles (first ebook, first mobile bundle etc). Jamesbuc (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This page was useful to analyze the evolution of content featured in Humble Monthly bundles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wok (talk • contribs) 12:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per argument I made 3 years ago at previous AfD. Nothing has changed since then. Page is still a mess and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the page is turning into a catalogue and has no place on wikipedia. There's simply too much information to include on something like this, especially when the page could theoretically go on for as long as they continue doing them. The article is also very long, clocking in at over 400k bytes, and the list could go on indefinitely.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like the info is useful and could be saved and transwikied somewhere, but remaining on Wikipedia, not so much. It obviously goes against WP:NOTCATALOGUE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Since it was brought up, there was no consensus for a rename here, but that conversation can take place on the talk page. Good suggestions for improvement in the discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greasy pole[edit]

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

The events listed in this article, inasmuch as they are notable, may warrant their own articles. But having an article titled "Greasy pole" that is about greased poles? We could just as well have one called "Slippery pole" or "low-friction pole". Or we could decide that we maybe don't actually need an article called "greasy pole". I understand that there is an expression about climbing such a pole-- if kept, maybe this should be moved over there. A loose noose (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : As it currently stands, the text of the contested article is one long essay, put together without any references. No strong case for independent notability is made. Quality itself of text is irrelevant. -The Gnome (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename : The greasy pole competition - by any number of names and different methods of how it works - is practiced in various places around the globe, including the United States. There's actually a Laverne & Shirley episode Festival, part 2 that features this. There are numerous variations on this. This article started out as an unsourced 2-sentence article about a contest to walk down a greasy pole. The edit history looks like a lot of people decided to add their own local variant of the contest. The contest exists ... but the article is a mess. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that content exists for the various greasy pole contests (which may warrant their own articles) but "greasy pole" as a Wikipedia article? We could have "List of greased pole competitions", maybe? A loose noose (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I have the sense we're dealing with an article that's essentially about a metaphor. -The Gnome (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not encyclopedic. 344917661X (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems best considered as a broad concept page as contests of this sort seem quite common all over the world. There's lots of scope for expansion and improvement per our editing policy. Deletion is not appropriate as it would be disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search at the top of the AFD shows thousands of results. Reading through them "greasy pole" is used as an expression in politics, so mention of that should be in the article also, as well as all the events involving an actual greasy pole. Dream Focus 23:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google news search for "Greasy pole competition" has 34 results. "Greasy pole" "competition" 996 results, down to 513 if you add in a minus sign before the word "politics". "Greasy pole" "festival" is 914 results. So there are a lot of these things around the world. I'm curious how many of them have their own Wikipedia articles, or considerable mention in an Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 00:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The greasy pole challenge is something Guinness World Records Gone Wild did an episode of. I would assume they have to be connected to Guinness World Records, otherwise they'd get sued for using that name. Not sure if its been in any of their books, and you need to pay to access their website to look over things. Dream Focus 00:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not rename This is a common turn of phrase, heck, it dates back to Benjamin Disraeli "I have climbed to the top of the greasy pole", and also appears in popular culture - The Greasy Pole. As a consequence, there is plenty of scope for this article. The question is of improvement. The climbing contest should be a subsection, as it stems directly from the proliferation of the phrase. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The individual events could always be spun off to individual articles with a summary here. I think the political phrase came from the literal festival event, certainly predating Disraeli's quote.[20][21][22] There is a June spike in searches, perhaps from Gloucester.[23] StrayBolt (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability reasonably well established; suitable content. No need for a rename. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Spitznogle Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Only sources are from the city's mayor office, a family genealogy website, and a "find a grave" website. My before search brought up even less than you usually see, with only seven possible hits on newspapers.com, and only 101 Google results total when you put his full name into quotes, mostly Wikipedia mirrors. I did try other searches as well and there's such a scarcity of sources I'm actually worried I missed something. SportingFlyer talk 05:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Melbourne FL is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic presumption of notability WP:NPOL #2 just for existing — at this size of city, a mayor has to show enough coverage to clear WP:GNG before the article can be created in the first place, and it is not enough to simply assume that local media coverage of him exists somewhere nobody's bothered to actually look. But this isn't showing even one piece of the kind of coverage it takes to make a mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time that Wikipedia stopped reflecting the personal preferences of a few editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally revoted a second time, because I wasn't paying enough attention and didn't notice that one of the above votes was mine. Removing second comment. Sorry, y'all. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music Is the Weapon[edit]

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

Album was first announced in 2015 but never released. According to this June 2017 article at Billboard [24], the magazine concluded that the artist "in fact, might never create an album again" with the artist adding "I shifted my goal to just make singles, because no one really buys our albums." Can therefore conclude that this album was cancelled. No release date or full track list for this album have ever been revealed, and the singles that have trickled out can be described in their own independent articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough high profile music reliable sources have dedicated entire articles around the album to meet the WP:GNG.

(2015) Exclaim
(2017) DJ Mag
(2018) Billboard
(2018) MTV

There's more out there too, as far as meeting the GNG goes, though most of their content is redundant to the 4 listed above. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I don't think those sources help, for the following reasons. The Exclaim article (1) announced the "upcoming" album in 2015, but note the Billboard article in my nomination, which said in 2017 that the album will probably never be released. Your DJMag article (2) says the same. Your Billboard and MTV articles (3,4) are from January 2018 and said the album would be released in March 2018, which did not happen. Your sources pretty much reaffirm those in my nomination, showing that an album first announced in 2015 has simply sparked three years of media buzz on when it will be released, if ever. Again, individual songs have trickled out and those can be discussed in their own articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A release date is not required to meet the GNG. Unreleased/cancelled albums can even have articles if they receive the proper coverage. The sources above demonstrated sustained dedicated coverage from four separate major music journalism outlets across 3 years. That's what is important here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but see also WP:FUTUREALBUM, which states "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." Track listing and release date have never been confirmed because this album has never moved beyond a what-if exercise in the media, even in those major sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and generally, I agree with that notion, when all we've got is "Untitled fourth studio album by Major Lazer" or when we've got a title and nothing more than a sentence worth of prose. But it cases like this, when its already been expanded out of stub status, and could be expanded further with the source listed above, and has year spanning dedicated coverage, I tend to associate it more with the Chinese Democracy clause of exceptions cited in the very same FUTUREALBUM. I guess we'll see where it falls for others. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The one "keep" only links to search results, which aren't the specific sources we usually look for. Sandstein 06:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Burkhardt III[edit]

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). He founded a couple computer companies which have their own articles, but I don't see significant coverage of his life beyond an obituary. ^Falling_Gravity 17:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as academic. See this Google Scholar search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not actually notable as an academic as Google Scholar returns patent applications. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 13:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GScholar h-index of 10. Papers with 112, 92, 86, 83, 79, 79, 57, 50, 22 and 17 cites. It is true that some of these citations are by other people's patents (not sure how many as he is also cited by journals). I am not sure what our attitude to patents is. I am not sure if we have policy for that. James500 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete - merger or redirection options can continue to be explored on the talk page. Sandstein 06:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxis Corporation[edit]

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

Bad PROMO page, with the content dumped into WP in this page also into CareFusion by a SPA editor (addition here; addition there, complete with the sure-sign-of-paid-editing unsourced content with "TM" marks. The tiny bit that was sourced and not commercial slag that was here and not there, I merged there and added more there to make the parent company page into something decent (diff), and left a redirect here (diff). That was undone (including the unsourced TM PROMO slag) and one crappy-because-it-is-merest-of-passing-mentions refs and one very-brief-report ref and one OK ref were added in this diff. Argh. Please delete this industrial waste, now thrice-dumped into our beautiful project, about a subsidiary of a subsidiary, that is already covered in the encyclopedia elsewhere, better. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article descris the original company before it was acquired and the subsequent divestiture. It now includes appropriate references. It may have started as a problem article, but the current version is acceptable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it duplicates content that is already in WP. Not every sperm is sacred. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 00:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep Jytdog if you're going to say the information is represented elsewhere, you need to show us where to suggest merger. Otherwise god gets quite irate. Seafox289 (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the nomination.Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardinal_Health#Acquisitions; not independently notable. Sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; just a business directory listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pyxis system appears to be notable - still has quite a lot of contemporary coverage. Perhaps the article could be focussed on the product rather than the company? Rathfelder (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on the product already. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable to me as per GNG and basic notability. Mia Watson (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Satisfies GNG. I think that an early close under WP:SNOW may be an option here. James500 (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by K.e.coffman to the company that acquired it. Jytdog, I do not see an article on the product--if there is one, we would redirect thee instead, if the name is different. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, you meant on their specific branded product. We have the article on the generic product - Automated dispensing cabinet. We tend to not do branded products in medicine but rather the generic. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a decent article with in-depth sources specific to the company. I would be fine with a redirect, but I think this can stand on its own given the product-centered nature of the company. Where are the refs? (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the company is oriented to this profduct, and the product is the more improtant, we should merge that article into here. What is not justifiable is having two articles ofor a borderline notable product and the similarly borderline notable company that makes it. Doing that is a 99% sure test of promotional writing. Many people trying to advertise of WP do it, and nobody else except those naoive enough to imitate them . DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles are you talking about when you say "merge that article into here"? I don't know of a separate page about the specific product - the CareFusion article has some info on Pyxis, and that's why I'm fine with a redirect. Where are the refs? (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. All "keep" opinions are by very new and/or low-editcount accounts or IPs, a sign of sockpuppetry or canvassing. Sandstein 06:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Karter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - the subject has only received substantial coverage in student newspapers and is (seemingly) unsigned. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Upon Review, Article is Valid and does not Violate WP:NMUSIC Hey SmartSE, upon review of the criteria, this is a valid article, which does not fail WP:NMUSIC

WP:NMUSIC outlines several core grounds upon which credibility may be established–

“Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself” which it has, with multiple of the sources being recognized as credible and notable by wikipedia itself."

For WP:NMUSIC notability, subjects are required to satisfy only ONE of the delineated criteria, while this article satisfies multiple: namely: #1, #10, and #12, as this artist has been covered on nationally broadcasted syndicate television.

It is also important for to note that record label signing is not a requirement for notability. 128.220.159.56 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 128.220.159.56 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking over WP:NMUSIC, I agree with 128.220.159.56 that this article meets multiple requirements for notability and doesn't fail WP:NMUSIC.

WP:NMUSIC criteria #1 requires "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." – While The Johns Hopkins source is the only source which is arguably not independent of the musician itself, the article meets this requirement with verified publication by Harvard, Cornell, and a documented appearance on national television.
WP:NMUSIC Criteria #10 provides notability for having performed music appearing in notable media, or "performance in a television show or notable film" – the artist is documented appearing on national television, performing a written song in an interview.
Likewise, WP:NMUSIC Criteria #12 gives notability if the subject "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." – The subject is documented being interviewed and performing on national television.
In response to SmartSE – WP:NMUSIC does not at any point indicate that notability is contingent upon record label association, nor does it indicate that the sources used in this article are of any less merit. It only requires notable publication, and all of the sources used in this article seem to be recognized by wikipedia.
Finally, WP:NMUSIC only requires at the miniumum one of its criteria to be met to establish notability– the article in question clearly meets three at least.

2600:1003:B006:74BA:6418:544D:FDDD:E7E2 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt, and report author for undisclosed COI - Massive undisclosed WP:COI on author Andrewkazimi for being a huge fan and probably knowing the guy. Hey, SmartSE, maybe homework first next time? How hard is it to google the author and subject together? https://ar-new.com/online/travis-karter-ice-official-music-video-0yDZTyn8Xho.html Seafox289 (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is inkeeping with Wikipedia standard article guidelines, and does not fail WP:COI

Hello Seafox289,

WP:COI violations constitute “contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith.”

I am in no way related to the subject, nor do I have any personal or acquaintance relationship with the subject whatsoever.

Furthermore, the article was written entirely in objective, academic language, utilizing information gathered from various credible, noted, and Wikipedia recognized sources, and is entirely inkeeping with all of Wikipedia’s rules and regulations.

This does not qualify as a COI.

Andrewkazimi (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seafox289, I am not sure about this one– but what I can say after reviewing WP:COI is that it specifically defines what constitutes a conflict of interest. Nowhere does it say that being a "fan" constitutes a conflict of interest. After looking through the wiki articles of multiple other "Artists of note", and googling the names of contributors, I find that it is quite common to find that the contributors of artists' articles are also fans of that artist's music. I also looked at the wiki pages of several sports teams and found the same. The article in question is written objectively, and does not at any point seem to me to indicate a conflict of interest. 2600:1003:B006:74BA:6418:544D:FDDD:E7E2 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets Wikipedia's guidelines In Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion Wikipedia’s guidelines identify “three cardinal criteria” an article must meet for validity. These are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research I looked at the respective criteria for all three, and this article meets all three.

Information presented is well cited and verifiable
Sources are independently written
Throughout the article, the writing maintains a Neutral point of view.

I also looked at what other people are saying in regards to COI and WP:NMUSIC. After watching the subject's televised interview with Smile Jamaica, it is unquestionable that the article definitely meets at least criteria 12 of WP:NMUSIC , which only requires at least one criteria to be met. In regards to WP:COI, this article does not violate COI by definition, and also I looked myself, and I couldn’t find any provable tangible connection between the author and the subject.

This article follows the three cardinal policies, and does not violate COI nor WP:NMUSIC and is not subject for deletion 68.33.93.136 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read this article, all of the rules in Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion, and also the pages for WP:NMUSIC and WP:COI, and I vote keep for the following reasons.

I agree with the earlier contributors that this article meets the rules for WP:NMUSIC, because it shows multiple credible, independent sources. SmartSE questions the sources because some of them are university newsspapers, but even without the newspapers, the article also features the subject being interviewed on national television. This explicitly meets Criteria #12 of WP:NMUSIC. It seems there was also a performance of both live and recorded music in that television segment, which meets both #12 and #10.
considering the views of the other contributors, I also don't think this is a COI. User Seafox289 suggested a "probable" COI, but so far there is no proof that there is any real relationship between the author and the subject. An earlier contributor made a good point that it is pretty common for people that are "fans" of something to edit its wikipedia page, so i don't think this counts as a COI. The article is written objectively, and follows wikipedias guidelines of verifiability and objectivity, and after reading the wikipedia pages of several other notable musicians, I don't see this article's language as seeming any different or more partial than the others.

63.139.44.18 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article through the "random article algorithm" and noticed that it had a deletion entry. At first I agreed with SmartSE because it seemed sources were mostly from college newspapers. I googled "Travis Karter" to see if i could find any other recent, credible sources, and I found an article published by popular music blog Trapstyle. I searched "Trapstyle" on wikipedia, and saw that this same source has also been used as a credible source in the article's of several other artists and musicians. I added the citation to the official page and then came here to comment, but now that i've read all the other comments from other users, I also agree that according to WP:NMUSIC the national TV interview that is documented in the article is enough to satisfy the #12criteria. However, now with the additional credible article, the subject also satisfies #1 as well. I am in agreemenet with other contributors that this article is a keep because it is objective, verifiable, and satisfies #1, #10, and #12 of WP:NMUSIC Claire Simmons46 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Summary of arguments With this article now relisted, and the discussion expanded, I'll summarize the arguments against the deletion of this article, and for it being kept.

Initially, User SmartSE suggested this article fails WP:NMUSIC, however, that proposal has been undermined, as the article clearly meets both Criteria #10 and #12 of WP:NMUSIC due to the subject's significant coverage on national broadcast television.
SmartSE questioned the sources due to some being college newspapers, however, with the additional source found by user Claire Simmons46, the page also now entirely meets #1 as well, as the new source comes from "Trapstyle," a reputable music publication that has been previously recognized and accepted by Wikipedia in several other articles.
It is important to note as well that WP:NMUSIC does not unequivocally ban the use of university newspapers as sources. It specifically says "in most cases" – The sources in question come from Harvard University and Cornell University – two of the most reputable university publications in the entire country, which, resultantly may be assigned higher credibility than the average university publication
In response to User Seafox289 suggesting a potential WP:COI, once again I restate: I have no significant personal, or even acquaintance relationship with the subject. All the information I gathered was entirely from the sources, which I was careful to cite at each turn. There is no unsourced information in the Wiki, and it is entirely written objectively, academically, and in-keeping with Wikipedia's three cardinal criteria, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewkazimi (talk • contribs) 04:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. The main references I see that are about him are in college newspapers (or college-student blogs [25]); I'm unconvinced of their independence from the source. I vehemently disagree that a TV interview with the participant while they were in middle school on Smile Jamaica meets WP:NMUSIC#12. The remaining source, Trapstyle, is an "artist-operated music blog". I'm confident that, per WP:SPIP concerns, the general notability guideline is not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Keep:~~ Addressing power~enwiki WP:NMUSIC Criteria #12 specifies exactly that the subject "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Could you please specify exactly how this substantial coverage on national television fails to meet Criteria #12? Furthermore, your mention of the subject's age seems to be entirely irrelevant, as nowhere in WP:NMUSIC does it indicate a statute of limitations of the sources provided. The source is an officially aired interview on national television, and fully meets Criteria #12 of WP:NMUSIC. In regard to your statements on the sources, as I've looked into it, all sources except potentially the source published by the Hopkins news-letter are entirely independent of the subject, but, even without the Hopkins news-letter, the subject has been covered by multiple independent sources. I was not the one who found the Trapstyle source, but after looking into it, I notice as indicated by Claire Simmons46 it has been referenced multiple times in other Wikipedia articles, clearly indicating its solidity as a source, so for it to be questioned here almost seems a tad subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewkazimi (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have the time or energy to deal with your rules-lawyering. The closing admin can watch the clip and dismiss it as not relevant to notability without further argument needed on my part. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - power~enwiki, If you are unable to answer any of my questions, I understand, however there is a clear difference between “rules-lawyering” and pointing out that you are attempting to enforce regulations that simply do not exist, and arbitrarily interpreting the ones that do. I ask that you maintain respectful tone, and be specific if you are going to suggest a violation. (continued)

- - Every potential charge of violation brought against this article has been responded to without any subsequent rebuttal from the original posters who suggested the violation. I have created and contributed to several articles as an editor, and will continue to do so– I have no particular vested interest in this particular article, nor the subject himself, but what I do find a tad perturbing is the repeated attempts to exercise arbitrary requirements, seemingly fabricated at the discretion of the contributing user. (continued)

- - If Wikipedia identifies criteria and guidelines by which an article must adhere, and the article adheres to those guidelines, then the exercise of arbitrary rulings leveraging caveats that are written nowhere in those guidelines seems subjective at best. Specifically: WP:NMUSIC requires one criteria to be met at least. #12 grants notability in the event of significant, nationally broadcasted television coverage. Nowhere does it mention disqualification based on any of the objections [[[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] has voiced, and to attempt to discredit the article based on fabricated requirements is entirely subjective and arbitrary. I further assert that this article satisfies #10 and ~~#5:~~ #1 as well. Furthermore, to solely "vehemently" suggest that sources are not independent, yet fail to indicate reasoning behind this charge, and to refuse to do so when asked, also seems arbitrary and subjective. (continued)

- - To the closing admin, I ask that you please analyze objectively, regardless of your final decision.

- - This is my final contribution as original author.

Andrewkazimi (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found additional national publication initially i was ambivalent to the overall debate, but i was able to find an additional, recent source from a national publication. I included it in the works cited of the article. I would vote to keep, as this article now sufficiently satisfies #1 of WP:NMUSIC

Scholarmaking (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brightpearl[edit]

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill technology company with no indications of notability in their own right. This article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Yet another private company that is using Wikipedia as an extension of a corporate website. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The coverage in the BBC, Telegraph, and FT is sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. I think the TechCrunch source meets WP:NCORP as well, as well as this article: [26]. -Mparrault (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Nope, none of those sources meets the criteria for establishing notability. WP:NCORP clearly sets out the criteria. The BBC podcast was an overview of the British computing industry and at about 21:00 interviews Chris Tanner the CEO at the time. This fails WP:ORGIND. The Telegraph article is an interview with a member of their board and CEO and therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, same as the FT article. The Techcrunch article is based on a company announcement, also fails WP:ORGIND. Your link to the Business Insider article similarly is based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Telegraph source is clear, and techcrunch is a marginal source. As I AGF that the sources I can't properly access (I could access the beeb - if someone can suggest a relevant time that would be helpful) are suitable, then these are some excellent sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I've suggested the time for the BBC podcast above but since it is an interview with the CEO (with no intellectually independent views/opinions/analysis) it fails WP:ORGIND. The Telegraph source is likewise devoid of intellectually independent content. The criteria for establishing notability for companies is documented at WP:NCORP and requires sources that do not rely on quotations/interviews such as these. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interviews with company personnel are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. In the absence of any other reliable independent sources, this should not be retained. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice. Only reason for suggestion is WP:TOOSOON. There are a couple of sources solidly supporting notability, i.e. FT and Telegraph, but not much more. Discarding the cruft we have little else. But a Keep decision in this case would not be outrageous. -The Gnome (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure if you realise that articles that rely extensively on interviews/quotations from connected sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notion Capital[edit]

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill VC company with no indications of notability in their own right. While they may have invested in several well-known firms, notability is not inherited and this article is little more than a platform to promote their services, failing WP:SPIP. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several of the references meet WP:NCORP including the CRN article ([27]). the WSJ article ([28]]) and the Financial Times article ([29]), among others. The coverage might be due to the founders connection with MessageLabs, but that doesn't mean it isn't there (notability isn't anti-inherited). Also, the article seems fairly well-written, and only modestly promotional.-Mparrault (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: CRN is pretty indiscriminate, while WSJ appears to be an interview. The other sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. $290M raised appears to rather small for a venture fund. Created by a SPA with no other contributions, Special:Contributions/Waynegibbins, clearly for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Revisiting the many other deletes by K.e.coffman and HighKing it seems clear there is an agenda to delete every VC firm from wikipedia regardless of size or local importance. Misterpottery (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Misterpottery, there seems to be a coordinated effort by HighKing to delete Venture Capital firms (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangrove Capital Partners and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden Ventures, for example). Not much thought has gone into it - HighKing has just copied and pasted the same filler comment. This attempted mass-deletion seems to be an abuse of the AfD process, since it does not allow defenders time to respond adequately. I suggest that the closing admin close none of the AfDs for delete, due to the attempted abuse of process.-Mparrault (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and it would be preferable to undo the most recent ones initiated by HighKingMisterpottery (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misterpottery, are you sure that your suggestion is to Delete? Reading your comments, it appears you might've made a mistake. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Perhaps you're missing the obvious. I don't delete the articles and this is a community process. I've noticed from many of your comments at AfD and above that you have a difficult time understanding "intellectually independent" based on the references you put forward as demonstrating notability. The AfD process gives editors at least a week to respond and the nominations are spread out. The common denominator here (and real reason for deletion) is that none of the topics of the articles meet the criteria for notability. Making ridiculous accusations about a "conspiracy" lowers your credibility. Myself and K.e.coffman often have opposing views but its often easy to agree when the standard of some of those articles is so low and obviously there either as free promotion or a mistaken believe that Wikipedia is another Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that start ups are expected to have a Wikipedia article about them as soon as possible. This means that a conflict with Wikipedia policy is rather common. "It's in my nature". -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Borderline, but one "delete" does not address the sourcing level and quality. Sandstein 06:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Kitson[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP who provided the following comment on the talk page:

As per: WP:N

This article reads like a CV. There isn't anything particularly notable about this political candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable activist during the Scottish independence referendum, 2014, she was the lead organiser of the "Yestival" and made multiple television appearances, on Scotland 2014. She was on the executive of Women for Independence- a notable group that emerged during the referendum campaign period. She then stood for the female co-convener position in the Scottish Green Party- this led to the first significant contest for such a position within that party. She was recently highlighted by YWCA. These various activities have had coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of Kitson and of the Greens. She is therefore notable when judged against WP:BASIC. I detailed some of her activities in the article and had thought it was worded in a neutral way- I have no connection to her. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: As stated, the article reads like a CV. There isn't anything particularly notable about this political candidate. What sources do you cite for being a "notable activist". "Yestival" doesn't have an Wikipedia article. Many people have had television appearances, yet don't have a Wikipedia article. The article is very similar to the one which was deleted for Toni Giugliano: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toni_Giugliano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the subject of the currently contested article is a politician. The subject of that other AfD was a political advisor. There's a difference. -The Gnome (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear WP:NPOL failure. After reviewing all the sources and doing a search of my own, the question in my mind is: does her failed leadership challenge in 2015 get her over the WP:GNG line? She received a decent amount of coverage in late 2015 because of it, but it's largely from one newspaper that I see (the BBC article is pretty light, so not really counting it.) If there were several other newspapers all covering the Greens leadership election I'd be more convinced to do a weak keep. The remainder of the sourcing on the page passes WP:V but isn't significant coverage of her - a name-drop here, a quote there, a mention here. SportingFlyer talk 05:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Never mind all the acronyms, Ms Kitson is a pretty-high profile individual in what is admittedly the junior party in the Scottish government. Here's a decent guide - has someone with a casual interest in the news living in what some (ill-informed) people might think of as a remote part of rural Scotland heard of them? In my case the answer is "yes". (I have no idea who Toni Giugliano is, so it isn't that similar.) Ben Mac Dui 18:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Green Party is not the junior party of the Scottish Government, the SNP run it as a minority administration. Toni Giugliano was a candidate for the SNP, who stood for them over several elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right of course - it is more of a loose alliance. All the more interesting then that I recognise one name and not the other. As a passing observation I note how our standards vary across topics. There are articles about thousands of Scottish footballers who only obsessives can recall, yet we have less than thirty WP:BIOs about the Scottish Greens and Category:Scottish women artists has 76 articles (that's less than 7 per century of history). It's lucky we are so gender balanced that this hasn't become more of an issue. (Inserts irony emoji.) Ben Mac Dui 07:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As per: WP:N and WP:NPOL there is not nothing noteworthy about this political candidate at this time to merit an article on Wikipedia. The article as it stands reads more like a CV. The section regarding her political career, simply notes the chronology of the elections she unsuccessfully stood for. The content of this article was very similar for Toni Giugliano and after the discussion there, the article was deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toni_Giugliano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to pass notability, has mainly been an unsuccessful candidate, and held a few not very important posts. PatGallacher (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unelected politician. --RaviC (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cut out the content in the article that's based on press releases, interviews and other primary sources and all that's left is the barest bones of an article about someone who worked for a charity - and even that is sourced awfully. There's no way the GNG is met. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there was canvassing that preceded the last three votes: [30], [31], [32]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I considered it a neutral notification & I would have ignored it otherwise. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Canvessing states: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. can you explain where I have tried to influencethe outcome of the discussion? If not, please apologise for making this accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on account of subject comfortably passing WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Several portraits in The National (here, here, etc); invited participant to a BBC panel; extensive reports for her go at party election and campaign in The Herald (e.g. here and here); Evening Times reported on subject's positions on youth; other interviews (e.g. here); and so on. It certainly looks like a keeper. No comment on the politics per se, of course. -The Gnome (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't think the Evening Times or Herald articles were at all substantial enough to show notability (short articles she's only quoted in/not the subject of) and most of the other coverage is a result of her failed candidacy to be the leader of a political party, which typically gets deleted unless coverage is substantial, since most candidates will receive at least some press coverage in the scope of their candidacy. SportingFlyer talk 23:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hi 82.32.116.24, you ask how you talkpage notification of this afd could be construed as WP:CANVASSING? easy, it was quickly included on afd lists early on, and has been relisted so no real need to personally notify anyone, and you didn't notify any editor who may be deemed experienced/expert in this type of article, but the clincher is that all three editors said "delete" on the other afd you referred to in the notification, anyway this is a keep as meeting WP:GNG, article reflects this with numerous sources and those mentioned by The Gnome, above. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and not an elected official ifcthe party,let alone elected to a body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.128.186 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence of notability which would help justifying standalone page for this politician per WP:GNG. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Only two valid "keep" opinions, but still no clear consensus. Sandstein 06:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Product Hunt[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability, company has been acquired in 2016. None of the references are intellectually independent and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Corporations are actually often pretty irrelevant ... and sometimes quite transient. Its the products/services they produce that matter. This article falls under WP:WEBSITE. Global Alexa rank of 4,000 and article visits of 1,500 a month are not directly relevant ... this isn't exactly Ed Sheerin, but are an indicator this is likely to be of significant interest. This indicates references are likely to exist ... and the site gains mentions in such places as in International Health where it is suggested as a place to check out emerging technology.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa ranks shouldn't play as a criteria for notability, there are 3999 websites before this that does not mean Wikipedia should list them all. Independent Health has mentioned it but only in passing.Gotitbro (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Alexa as a evidence of a website's notability is like citing the phone directory as evidence of a person's notability. Alexa's stated mission is to cite everything. -The Gnome (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Alexa Rank metric is a website 'popularity' metric and as such is considerably different than an alphabetic telephone directory. I've seen quotes go their being 2 billion websites .... albeit quite a lot less than 200 million being active. In that context being about the top 4000 it relatively near the top. Careful reading of what I wrote indicated that that of Alexa rank is an indicator a significant number of people were interest in the website ... it had a high probability of people finding it significant. It also means people may be interested in asking wikipedia ... what is 'Product Hunt'. The Independent Health is above a passing comment becuase it is a significant and specific reference.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's very much a Silicon Valley thing and the references I find are tech sites, but I see enough. [33] [34] are two more refs with in-depth coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This web service company page is important. A lot of new and innovative products / services are launched on a daily basis through their platform. It was funded by prominent venture capitalists like Andreessen Horowitz and it was acquired by AngelList for about $20 million. Over the course of years, it has received notable press from independent publications like Wall Street Journal, Quartz and Fortune. Please consider keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dertrand179 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Dertrand179 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This web site and company has played a large and important part in the launch and promotion of companies and entrepreneurship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.165.58 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 199.192.165.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON; nn as either WP:NCORP nor WP:NWEB. Sourcing is in passing ("...one of many such websites..." etc) and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:WEBSITE. The former failing is trivial; as to the the latter, the guideline states that web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria: (1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (2) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. I see nothing of this sort for the contested subject. This is as close as it got, yet. So, generously, WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All references seem to surround press events such as the product launch itself or the acquisition. While these might be from notable publications these are simply coverages of events which does not establish independent notability as said by the nom. Wikipedia would be filled with unencyclopedic entries of any company/product if we were to go about on this criteria as product launches and events (reported on by notable publications) happen almost every day. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Some resources are good, Tech industry is wide and I think it's difficult to determine notability within the tech world. Could be WP:TOOSOON as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mia Watson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This round has a lot of new discussion entrances on delete but I .. and I assume others .. are still for keep. I added yet another cite the other day. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara'h (singer)[edit]

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

While I'm not fluent in French, the Google translation of this article into English leads me to believe that this is a non-notable singer. Strikerforce^Talk 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like her music, but that doesn't mean that reliable sources exist to show notability (they don't). Even the source that is on the page lists her has having one song that charted at 164 - hardly an accomplishment worthy of an article. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 17:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I restored the previous English content and removed the copyvio in French. Largoplazo (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NSINGER and WP:NWEB. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Sexton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Buck Sexton

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

No notable secondary coverage by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ withdraw with apologies, there were so many hits, several interviews with him that were about him, not about a security or political topic, that I assumed a bio could be sourced. perhaps someone may do so. I couldn't.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC) after finding this at AFD, I ran a quick search to see who he is and quickly saw enough to persuade me that he's a notable politics and security pundit. So I figured that the page must not be sources, and went to the page to add an Interview with Buck Sexton on The Kelly File. The page already had a lot of references, enough that it would have persuaded me to just tag it for improvement and move on. I also ran a gNews search on his current gig, a show calledThe Buck Sexton Show, got a lot of solid hits [35]. Just keep it and tag for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but every hit for a RS in that Google search is for op-eds authored by Buck Sexton. That's why there are so many hits. "The Buck Sexton Show" is mentioned in the author biography snippet. It's not that RS are covering him or his show. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you're wrong. scroll. also, the first search I ran was a Proquest news archive search, I often start with a Proquest search on contemporary topics, because if a subject doesn't turn up there, it's unlikely to be worth bothering with. but Sexton is clearly notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I scrolled through all the pages and the hits to RS (CNN, the Hill) all look like op-eds to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he's been a regular on CNN, The Hill, but you skipped stuff like The Blaze’s Buck Sexton In Explosive Exchange With Boston Suspects’ Aunt: ‘Two Terrorists: One Down, One To Go’; Newsmax's Top 50 Conservative Podcasts; iHeart Boston Moves Conservative Talkers To Bigger Stick.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links are RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Reads like an attempt at promotion more than anything. -The Gnome (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on the additional sources discovered by E.M. Gregory. These new sources combined with those extant in the article establish Notability. Great job!– Lionel^(talk) 11:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be any notable secondary coverage by reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to hosting the nationally syndicated, eponymous The Buck Sexton Show. After years as a talking head at CNN, as of this month he is co-host with Krystal Ball of new a podcast on The Hill (newspaper), called Rising [36]. WP:JOURNALIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete this article has many of the signs in WP:Identifying PR. Things like interviews are not independent and do not count toward N. There are too few sources about him to generate an article. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 10:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost all of the available sources are unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes, including for establishing notability per WP:BASIC.- Mr X 🖋 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErnestCarrot. MER-C 14:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Devlin[edit]

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

Author of self-published books that fails WP:NAUTHOR. The claim to being a "best-selling" author is not backed up by a source. (A Duke's Desire seems to be a series of 9 self-published romances by 9 different authors). I could find no independent report of the accident and the story of her wanting to write differs in sources, books delivered to her in hospital books found in parent's beach house. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret: Subject seems to be an admirable person, yet does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. Sources invoked are reports about the genre of romantic novels, in which subject's name is mentioned among many others'. Plus, reviews from specialty publication Romantic Times. -The Gnome (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the claim of being a best-selling author appears to be sourced to being #117 on the USAToday best seller's list, for 1 week. That's indistinguishable from a promotional campaign. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquín Ayuso de Pául[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the subject's company. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that this fails WP:ANYBIO. -- Dane ^talk 02:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because someone might be seriously cheating someone else here. Text opens by stating that subject is a "co-founder" of Tuenti and, for this, it links to a university in Madrid! That's it, nothing else, just a link to the welcome page of the university. The two articles (here and here) in El Mundo are about the company; each article name-drops the subject only once. Then the primary sources avalanche begins, plus verbiage from a PR company (here). You're welcome, man. -The Gnome (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of parasitic alien species[edit]

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

Mostly unreferenced. I'm not sure that the few sources are unreliable, but the list is not well-defined and it resembles a recently deleted batch of lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, mostly unreferenced listcruft. With the refs that do exist, one might be able to create a Parasites in fiction type article, but not as a list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not original research, and it adds some value to our encyclopedia. I would rename it to "Fictional Parasitic Alien Species" and keep it. Seafox289 (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, make into a table, describe, and source a bit better. I'm no great fan of crufty lists with numerous unsourced entries, but good sources are available for some "Fictional Parasitic Alien Species", and quite a number of biologists interested in parasitology have compared the fictional aliens (especially but not only those in Alien) with real parasites (including parasitoids, which are a kind of parasite).^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] The list is therefore both potentially and actually sourceable and of encyclopedic interest, which is more than one can say of many other lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another list of unreferenced listcruft. Ajf773 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, reliably cited material with some listcruft attached. At the least the cited material can be moved to something like Parasites in fiction or Parasitic aliens in fiction, as the sources are numerous, in-depth, and reliable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Guarino, Ben (19 May 2017). "Disgusting 'Alien' movie monster not as horrible as real things in nature". The Washington Post.
^ Glassy, Mark C. (2005). The Biology of Science Fiction Cinema. McFarland. pp. 186 ff. ISBN 978-1-4766-0822-8.
^ Moisseeff, Marika (23 January 2014). "Aliens as an Invasive Reproductive Power in Science Fiction". HAL Archives-Ouvertes.
^ Pappas, Stephanie (29 May 2012). "5 Alien Parasites and Their Real-World Counterparts". Live Science.
^ Williams, Robyn; Field, Scott (27 September 1997). "Behaviour, Evolutionary Games and .... Aliens". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 30 November 2017.
^ "The Making of Alien's Chestburster Scene". The Guardian. 13 October 2009. Archived from the original on 30 April 2010. Retrieved 29 May 2010.
^ Sercel, Alex (19 May 2017). "Parasitism in the Alien Movies". Signal to Noise Magazine.
^ Dove, Alistair (9 May 2011). "This is clearly an important species we're dealing with". Deep Sea News.
^ "Parasitism and Symbiosis". The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. 10 January 2016.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect toDelete in favour of Parasites in fiction (per Zxcvbnm and Seafox289), which I've created using the sources here and some more. What I've found is, ironically given parasite biology, an Aggregated distribution, namely that a few books and films are mentioned in many reliable sources, while the rest of the books and films get a rapidly decreasing number of mentions. Most television series and video game parasites such as most of those listed here are barely sourceable, though I've added reasonable sources for some of them. The danger of new cruft has, I suspect, greatly diminished but a text article is clearly more robust than a list. Finally, redirects are better than deletions in these cases as the bluelinks do often indicate sourceable items. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chiswick Chap:Good work on the article. That said, the title of this one is a little too overly specific to merit a redirect in my opinion, so my opinion will still remain delete - especially since more vague terms like Parasitic alien are not redirects._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks I guess. I can't follow your logic at all—what other redirects do is of no relevance, but I've pointed them at the new article anyway. I've saved most of what is worth saving so we'd better just trash this one; I think we are diminishing the encyclopedia with all of these events, which seem to be becoming increasingly numerous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject lacking verifiably independent notability. Honorable mention for cruftsmanship. -The Gnome (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous reliable sources on the subject, including those listed here, and more at Parasites in fiction, actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect to White Lightning (1973 film). Sandstein 06:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gator McKlusky[edit]

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

It's nearly all plot synopsis of the main character of two movies. The rest is already covered in the first film, White Lightning. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. What a great opportunity for our own work to shine and astonish readers are movie plots and character descriptions. Especially non-notable ones. -The Gnome (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White Lightning as it could be a viable search term or delete. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long Branch Mayoral Election 2018[edit]

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

This is a mayoral election of an American city with the population of 30K; the total number of votes cast was below 5K. The mayor is not notable by our standards (though articles about two of the three candidates somehow exist), I wonder why the 2018 elections would be notable. I am sure if this was not happening in the US, and article could have been speedy deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: one of the candidates is presumably notable as a former member of Pennsylvania legislature; another one is a wrong link to a football player.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. On a side note, none of the candidates has their own article, the current two links are to different people of the same name (Pallone - to a PA politician, Schnieder - to an athlete). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just as Nom states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails all notability guidelines with flying colors. BTW, the two articles that are linked are not actually about the candidates, they are about different people with the same names.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Harford[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She had a couple probably notable roles (Inside Daisy Clover, Paper Chase, Dynasty, maybe Hitchcock Presents?) to pass WP:NACTOR but I'm having difficulty finding good sources to flesh it out, at least online - the ones I can find just show WP:V. Don't mind if it gets deleted for failing WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The roles amount to a few minor television roles. If these are enough to count as "significant", that word is being clearly abused. Harford had no significant roles, so she does not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable roles in Dynasty, Inside Daisy Clover, Paper Chase Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on account of subject meeting the notability criterion. Recurring and/or permanent roles in hit TV-series are almost never "minor roles"; they're significant, so #1 and possibly #2 of WP:NACTOR are met. -The Gnome (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of spouses of Kerala governors[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG,WP:LISTBIO and WP:LISTCRITERIA .The wives of all the Governors of all states are not notable can be mentioned in the same page of the governor only the Prime Minsiter or Presidents wives have separate articles Ralphlends (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ to List of governors of Kerala. On its own, this list fails to meet WP:LISTPEOPLE as none of the spouses are notable , and it's WP:NOTINHERITED. This list duplicated content in the governors list, (i.e. date in/out of office). It would have been simpler to have added one column there to indicate the spouse (with citations of course). The list creator, Netha Hussain might wish to do this, or perhaps copy the content to their sandbox for later merging. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps move this page to my sandbox, so that I can use the content later to merge with the List of governors of Kerala. --Netha (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for appreciating my suggestion. I was going to copy the text over for you, but you are clearly an experienced editor, so I'll leave it to you. I suggest you copy this soon, lest the outcome is to delete, rather than redirect. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since notability is not inherited nor married into. Where's the list of mistresses? I'm just saying. -The Gnome (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Gnome, I take you're point. I've struck my original !vote, and altered it to delete. I think Netha Hussain has already had notice to copy over any citable content into List of governors of Kerala, should they wish to do so. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and also List of spouses of vice presidents of India needs to deleted only Spouse of the Prime Minister of India and First Ladies and Gentlemen of India are notable.171.60.223.167 (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Mason (disambiguation)[edit]

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

only one article Hhkohh (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easily. -The Gnome (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:G6.Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary dab. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary, only links to one existing oage.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yummypets[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/FlorianGr with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this promotional text about a company that fails WP:NCOMPANY. The article's creator and the main contributor are SPAs. -The Gnome (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are a mixture of passing start-up coverage for the website and announcements of the company's funding and participation in a start-up accelerator: not I think sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. It is unclear what happened with the company's smart collar promised for 2015-6 [37] (around the same time as others such as Dogtelligent were gaining coverage), which might provide a second angle on which to consider the company. Overall I am not seeing the in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate notability, whether as a company or a social media site. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Other related articles also deleted, no reason to draw this out and waste more time. Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superhuman (Aretha Henry album)[edit]

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

Draft article declined five times at AFC, then copypasted to main article space. Non-notable album and possible conflict of interest. No significant coverage in reliable sources, and claims of chart placement are suspicious. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Aretha Henry, WP:Articles for deletion/Beautiful (Aretha Henry album), and WP:Articles for deletion/Enchanted (Aretha Henry album): all are similarly reference-bombed with unreliable sources. TMG^talk 03:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 03:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this citation-overkilled, highly promotional text about a subject that fails WP:NALBUM. -The Gnome (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aretha Henry. Vorbee (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vorbee, note that Aretha Henry is also up for AfD and looking likely to be deleted as well. Richard3120 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one suffers from the same problems as the related articles noted by the nominator. (I nominated one of those mylself; kudos to TMG for finding this one too.) All are attempts to appear notable thru link bombing, but the singer is in pure self-promotional mode. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to Sum Up - There is a lot of "See also" in the world of Aretha Henry deletion discussions. We now have four AfDs nominated by four different people over five days. This shows you the power of community, if you ask me. Here is what we have so far:

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal elections in Torreperogil[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Unless municipal elections in Torreperogil (a town of merely 7,500 people) are so unusual or important as to have "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" (to quote WP:N), this article should be deleted as being not within our scope. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 03:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 03:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, for the exact reasons proffered. -The Gnome (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Moriarty[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, sourced only to local history book and primary source. Deproded with no explanation. Rusf10 (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of text being essentially without sources and about a subject lacking in notability. There might be a possible, specialty, historical interest on the subject someplace, but Wikipedia is not a depository of indiscriminate information. -The Gnome (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 16:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but the article is not sourced anywhere close to well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local politician needs significant press coverage nationally or internationally to pass WP:NPOL and it is not showing here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NPOL failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Horncastle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hello. The previous AfD in January 2017 concluded with a unanymous delete !vote. In this new version of the article created last month, we have 12 footnotes but no source about the subject whatsoever. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, plus current status and WP:BEFORE verification. Also, Salt, on account of unwarranted and without justification recreation. -The Gnome (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguably the foremost Italian football expert working in the English speaking media. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 09.09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep I am more than happy to say he passes WP:GNG and clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR having multiple published news articles on the internet. Govvy (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : This is all well and good, coming from fellow football fans, but where are the sources? Individual opinion and sentiments do not count for much in terms of Wikipedia content. How can we verify, for example, that the article's subject is "the foremost Italian football expert working in the English speaking media"? That's a rather big claim; got any source stating this? And how exactly does subject "pass WP:NAUTHOR"? There are myriads of persons who have had "multiple published news articles on the internet." None of them has a Wikipedia biography.

WP:NAUTHOR demands that "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", which again means we need sources. It also demands that the person "is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique," which subject evidently has not. Or, that he "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Same conclusion.That's what WP:NAUTHOR is about; not just publishing text. We may all enjoy the person's work but Wikipedia is all about verifiability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @The Gnome: Firstly, did you read the article or look through the citations? It's not a great article and needs a hell of a cleanup. But with respect, I don't think you have looked hard at the article otherwise you would of noticed The Guardian citation, a published newspaper he writes for, with multiple listed podcast works through that citation. He writes for different news sources, they are published both online and in newspapers like this one written for the Independent, 1, He has written a hell of a lot, he has been on TV a fair bit also, what on earth are you trying to verify? Besides you can even download a kindle book he helped write, 2, The important thing here, does he satisfy GNG, by hell he does! Govvy (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles from the person; not about the person. The notability criteria for a journalist are found in WP:JOURNALIST, criteria which oursubject evidently does not meet. As to the presumption of notability provided by WP:GNG, that does not guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia. The text of the guideline is explicit: Significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So, why exactly should there be a Wikipedia article about this particular journalist? -The Gnome (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably just about scrapes through. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources and coverage are more than sufficient to establish GNG. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nice obit, surprised at how little it contains about his tenure as mayor. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. H. Moore[edit]

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

Again, deprod without explanation. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sourcing is local history book and a one sentence mention in a medical journal. Rusf10 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 16:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good prodding and it should have ended with that. Clear case of yet another politician that fails NPOL.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but the article is not sourced anywhere close to well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Moore's obituary is here. While I generally think well referenced articles on small town mayors are suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, I don't plan on expanding this article. One thing of some interest the obituary mentions is that his brother, Garfield Moore, was a state legislator. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. O. Matthewson[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Source #1 is unclear, a newspaper article? perhaps a obituary?? The link is dead. Source #2 has a one sentence mention of the subject is and is adequate to establish notability. Source #3 is a local history book, being that it is local does little to establish notability either. Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing WP:POLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. SportingFlyer talk 18:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but the article is not sourced anywhere close to well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Ashland, Kentucky obsession clearly went overboard. Not every mayor of Ashland, Kentucky is notable, and no higher standard of notability would ever include Matthewson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YouBar[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable consumer goods company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is routine news; passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete this highly promotional text. The article contains some thirteen references: one is a YouTube trailer ad; one is a simple review of a book authored by the creator of the product; one is a congratulatory article in an advertising website about the product's advertising campaign; two are dead links; and six are links to the company's website promoting the product. The only references worth something are a 2008 report in The New York Times and a small 2008 report from ABC7 News. They too come off as unquestioning and somewhat promotional. A case for WP:TOOSOON is generously made, besides WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. A. Ginn[edit]

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

No claim to notability at all. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and only one source. Forced to AfD because of deprod without any explanation. Rusf10 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of mayors like the other short bios. --RAN (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect, W.A. Ginn is not a likely search term and violates WP:COMMONNAME--Rusf10 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you wanted a redirect, why did you deprod this???--Rusf10 (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is an excellent question! Comment user was not banned when he expressed his opinion. gidonb (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because subject fails notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 16:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Biography of an individual in an otherwise unnotable position; looks like a failure of NPOL to me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but the article is not sourced anywhere close to well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Simonsen[edit]

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

I proded this article, but Onel5969 deproded when he reviewed the article, note that W-league is NOT listed in WP:FPL, so fail WP:NFOOTY, thanks! Hhkohh (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, but the first line in WP:FPL is "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." It's an essay, not a guideline. The actual pertinent guideline is WP:NFOOTY, which clearly states, "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues...". The W-League (Australia) is " the top-division women's soccer league in Australia, run by Football Federation Australia (FFA)". It's a fully professional league. Therefore as this player plays for a team in that league, she clearly meets WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First it's not a fully professional league: [38] Second she hasn't played in a fully professional league, so at best this would be a draftify - but the only thing I can find on her are a couple routine articles talking about how she signed for the Wanderers. I've been on the record saying I don't think NFOOTY works very well for women's leagues, but she doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG either. SportingFlyer talk 04:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject not meeting WP:NFOOTY. That guideline demands that the subject must have played...in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues. The guideline, then, links to a list of the professional leagues participation in which by a footballer is accepted by Wikipedia as evidence of the footballer's notability. For Australia, the W-League and the NSW National Premier League, in which subject has played, are not in the list (only the A-League is). -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. It's not a fully-professional league, so the first 'keep' !vote should be discounted as being clearly in error (the W-League is listed at WP:FPL in the non fully-professional category). Number 5 7 14:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When is a league considered fully professional? All players in the W-League get paid to play since 2017. As per the attached article Under the new two-year agreement, all players, other than those on scholarships, are guaranteed a minimum retainer of at least $10,000 for the coming season and $12,200 for the 2018/19 season, with no prescribed maximum cap on any one player’s retainer.. Started a discussion here as just realised even if the league is pro, this player hasn't made an appearance for WSW in the league anyway yet.NZFC^(talk) 21:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think at some point we need to look at the fact that WP:NFOOTY has issues with systemic bias and is going to lead to systematically less coverage of women athletes. This is problematic. As NZFC points out, the league considers itself professional. One can make arguments about the amount of money meaning they have to work second jobs so they aren't professional, or that the league does not receive as much media coverage -- but equally these reasons can all come back to concerns of systemic bias. It's absolutely true that one individuals AfD isn't the best place to talk about these broader issues. That being said, I think this is a conversation that needs to be had, and we need to look at addressing WP:NFOOTY's gender imbalance. matt91486 (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. Interestingly, it wouldn't save this article, as she hasn't made an appearance. SportingFlyer talk 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above comments by matt91486. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to do with NFOOTY (which is completely unfit for purpose even for male footballers but that's another debate), she just clearly does not pass the GNG. BigDom (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Huynh[edit]

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

I proded this article, but Onel5969 deproded when he reviewed the article, note that W-league is NOT listed in WP:FPL, so fail WP:NFOOTY, thanks! Hhkohh (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, but the first line in WP:FPL is "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." It's an essay, not a guideline. The actual pertinent guideline is WP:NFOOTY, which clearly states, "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues...". The W-League (Australia) is " the top-division women's soccer league in Australia, run by Football Federation Australia (FFA)". It's a fully professional league. Therefore as this player plays for a team in that league, she clearly meets WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does fail WP:NFOOTY (see my argument at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicole_Simonsen) and more importantly for women's soccer WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject not meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. That guideline demands that the subject must have played...in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues. The guideline, then, links to a list of the professional leagues accepted by Wikipedia as evidence of notability for a footballer when the footballer has participated in them. For Australia, the W-League, in which subject has played, is not in the list (only the A-League is). -The Gnome (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for aforementioned reasons. No notability established and league played in isn't noted as being applicable to WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, perhaps a bit of WP:TOOSOON. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. It's not a fully-professional league, so the first 'keep' !vote should be discounted as being clearly in error (the W-League is listed at WP:FPL in the non fully-professional category). Number 5 7 14:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG not pass and WP:NFOOTBALL not meet at all. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:FOOTY, as the Wleague, although being the top oz women's league, does not appear on the list, and also does not meet WP:GNG as a gsearch brings up no useable sources (found this in the Hawkesbury Gazette, but is not significant outside footy and is "local"), now with all this snow around this should probably be closed early Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]