The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Banana[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to be a notable term: I have been unable to find any reliable or academic sources that use this "Green Banana" term in the context of megalopolises, only forums at best. There also doesn't seem to be an indication that the term is widely used either, unlike Blue Banana (indeed, the article itself admits that the term is "lesser known"), Considering green bananas (as in the fruit) exist, this could possibly work as a redirect to a banana-related article, though considering the current article text, a delete-redirect might be a better option here.

Note: the article was previously deleted per a deletion discussion, but based on a mirror on Deletedwiki, this article is a new version and not a recreation of the previous version; as such, G4 does not apply here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy ping to previous AfD commenters @El cid, el campeador, Lithopsian, Ma'az, LaundryPizza03, Bondegezou, Power~enwiki, MB, and Staszek Lem: Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete or move to draft; if the re-creator hasn't added any references it's not worth anyone's time to re-litigate this. Blue Banana is stupid but seems to have enough references, Golden Banana probably doesn't but I can't prove it. This is just a non-notable neologism, like the "Yellow Banana" (Paris-Warsaw) or the "Red Octopus" (I don't even know where). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - G4: Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion. No sources, none of the concerns are addressed, still dubious potential hoax. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Double Speedy Delete (see my PPS) as a hopelessly nonnotable neologism (sources are extremely scarse and nondefinitive). Assuming good faith, I may guess that the article was recreated due to prominent red green banana in "Megalopolis" the previous deleter failed to remove. I removed it], together tith the surrounding unreferenced stuff (tagged since 2017). So I guess this time the article will be gone for good, I hope. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  PS Despite allegedly covering a big chunk of Poland, there is no Polish equivalent, "Zielony banan", in use. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  PPS A wasted a bit of by curiosity charge and IMO it looks like we have a mild case of "citogenesis" here: green banana was fed to Megalopolis in April 2013 by an anon IP. And it appears all references in the outer world, including this supposedly reliable one are based on various versions of Wikipedia "Megalopolis" article. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Just like that last time; nothing has changed. MB 04:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above and as before. Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, of course, and with haste; otherwise, "Keep" as a useful example of how articles should NOT be created in Wikipedia. As it stands, it has no sources, contains only personal opinion, reads like a hurried essay, offers a personal viewpoint, refers to a non-notable subject, and even contains a nonsensical map. Its creator simply could not care less. -The Gnome (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as before. The discussion confirmed it did not meet notability requirements, and new content has done nothing to allay or disprove those concerns and arguments. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:30, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey hardcore[edit]

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

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

nomination this as per WP:OR. Yes there are hardcore punk bands in New Jersey, but I not seeing any sources that cover New Jersey hardcore as a separate movement from punk elsewhere. The article uses acronymfinder.com as a source. The page arbitrarily classifies bands into time periods (called waves) that are not backup-ed by any reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:- previous verision of the article under the title List of New Jersey hardcore bands was also deleted per this discussion

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Without relevant reliable sources, this one is pure original research. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. The article does not appear to use any reliable sources. Likely does not meet GNG either given the lack of sources. Tillerh11 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The term "New Jersey hardcore" has actually been used by various bands in that scene to describe themselves; here is one example: [1], and others can be found online. However this is still an attempt at self-categorization in which similar bands from the same area try to promote their scene. The concept is insignificant unless it is noticed by reliable media sources in the outside world, as has happened for scenes like West Coast hip hop or Swedish death metal etc. Not so for these Jersey fellas. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to hardcore punk. There is no indication of notability, just that there are hardcore bands from New Jersey. Yawn. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to redirect, there is no discussion of the topic there either and it doesn't seem to be a widely used term.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:05, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhett Baker[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of the mayor of a town with a population of less than one thousand people. As always, every mayor of everywhere does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as a mayor -- to qualify as notable, a mayor has to have enough reliable source coverage about him in real media to enable us to write something genuinely substantive about him and his political career. But three of the four references here are primary sources that do absolutely nothing to establish a person's notability at all -- a press release from his alma mater, the staff directory of his own employer and the statewide database of all teacher salaries in Pennsylvania -- and the fourth is just a raw table of election results. These are not the kind of sources it takes to make a smalltown mayor notable just for being a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the GNG. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails general notability and notability for politicians. Google search is not turning up reliable sources on him either. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't look like he's done anything really notable and most of the sources do not help establish notability. I usually vote Keep for mayors but not when it is veritably a small town. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not deserve to be notable WP:GNG. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. 344917661X (talk) 00:20, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Leonard Nimoy. Delete, but a redirect seems unexceptional. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Zober[edit]

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

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

Actress whose main claim to fame is being Leonard Nimoy's first wife. Her acting career did not live long and prosper. Fails WP:INHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG on the basis of the references cited.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the "significant coverage" GNG requires? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:NACTOR. Even IMDb, which is generally not acceptable by Wikipedia as a reliable source, cannot string together any kind of notable appearances in films, TV, or the theater. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge any salvageable content to Nimoy's article. Subject does not meet any notability other than being the spouse of a notable person. There is no acting career, as mentioned above, imdb lists her as a wardrobe assistant. References seem to be more of a mentioning than an about, being more about her husband than her. Auto/Biographical memoirs would by nature mention parents, and would not be considered independent of the subject.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:04, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftified by author. ansh666 06:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Carlo Villaruel[edit]

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

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

Subject is a journalist but the citations only point to what he wrote, not about him. There's no credible claim of significance and the subject fails WP:BLP1E, as well as WP:GNG. The article was de-PROD'd by Rockmond2572 simply insisting that the subject exists. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument for deletion or redirection. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Konakovo Power Station[edit]

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

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, obviously notable. I don't know why anyone would think that a large power station would not be notable, but a proper WP:BEFORE would soon have set you straight. The effect of warm water from the station on the lake ecology has been extensively studied;
  • Boitsov, M.P. (1971), "The effect of warm water discharged by the Konakovo Power Station on the distribution and growth of youn fishes of Ivan'kovo Resorvoir", Journal of Ichthyology, vol. 11, iss. 2, pp. 257-262.
  • The above is a translation from the original Russian in Voprosy ikhtiologii, vol. 11, pp. 325-331.
  • Boitsov, M.P. (1974), "The morphology of underyearling fishes in the zone affected by warm waters discharged from the Konakovo Power Station", Journal of Ichthyology, vol. 14, iss. 6, pp. 904-910.
  • The above is a translation from the original Russian in Voprosy ikhtiologii, vol. 14, pp. 1046-1054.
  • T. Langford, Ecological Effects of Thermal Discharges, briefly discusses Konakovo and lists at least two more papers [Sappo (1975), Sappo (1976)] in the biliography which are explicitly about warm water from Konakovo.
  • Korgina, Y.M.; Mordukhay-Boltovskoy, F.D (1979), "Effect of heated water from the Konakovo power station on chironomid larvae in Ivan'kovo reservoir", Hydrobiological Journal, vol. 15, iss. 2

Other sources more concerned with the engineering and construction of the plant include,

• An article in The Daily Review, vol. 15, p. 71 has an article that includes this snippet; "Mikhail Poliakov, Hero of Socialist Labour, leader of the erectors' team, is installing the fifth million kilowatt of capacities at the Konakovo power station, or four times in excess of pre -revolutionary Russia's total power output." This is clearly a longer article, but that's all I could get in snippet view.
• Thermal Engineering, vol. 23 has some discussion of the station at page 18 (sorry, couldn't get the name of the article) and the article at page 32, "Feedwater and condensate of supercritical thermal power station generating units using ammonia and hydrazine" might be largely about Konakovo Power Station judging by the snippet.
• Problems in the Design and Operation of Thermal Power Stations discusses Konakovo Power Station.

These are only the sources that come up in the English language. I'm pretty sure that there must be much more in Russian language sources if a Russian speaker would care to look for us. SpinningSpark 23:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For most power stations, references can be expected to exist. Digging may be required, especially for older ones and those in non-English-speaking countries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the research done by Spinningspark. They have shown multiple RS about the construction and impact of the power plant and there is no doubt more available in the Russian language. All sufficient to confer notability per WP:GNG and provide the basis for an article. Hence, keep. --Mark viking (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfordjohn56 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On the basis of the BEFORE search conducted by SpinningSpark, above, I'm convinced this passes the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:45, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhoods of Ciudad del Este[edit]

Neighbourhoods of Ciudad del Este (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · of Ciudad del Este Stats)

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

This article is completely unsourced and a google search doesn't bring up any list of these neighbourhoods. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LISTN. All entries are redlinks. Ajf773 (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I had a look in es:Categoría:Ciudad del Este to see if we could translate some stubs – there's nada. A list article with only redlinked titles is not a navigational help for the reader. Sam Sailor 18:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails LISTN and GEO requirements. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, probably to Ciudad del Este, if not "Keep and develop". Or redirect specifically to a new section in that city article. This would conform to wp:ATD; we are obligated to look for decent alternatives to deletion. Sure the current list doesn't look great, it should probably have been blacklinks with some description about each neighborhood, and with a map of the neighborhoods, instead of its current bare list of redlinks appearance. But Ciudad del Este is apparently the second largest city in Paraguay and has population around 300,000. It has a long history and its neighborhoods can be significant in explaining/describing the city. It could be reasonable to list the neighborhoods in a section in the city article. It could be reasonable to restore the list-article eventually when Wikipedia gets around to developing more geo coverage in S. America in general, or when someone from Paraguay gets around to developing this specific topic. Note there are zillions of members of Category:Lists of neighbourhoods. It is reasonable to save the edit history, and specifically its content being a list of neighborhood names, in edit history at the redirect. No reason to punish whoever started this, just a little bit ahead of the curve. --Doncram (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the discussion so far mentions searching on lists of neighborhoods, and mentions looking for ES stubs on neighborhoods, but I don't think there is any assertion above about having searched for coverage about each of the specific neighborhoods mentioned. Many or all of them could easily be "list-item notable" for inclusion in a restored list-article eventually, with definition of their boundaries and description of why each one is important, etc. I am reminded that for San Juan, Puerto Rico, whose Districts section, was questioned somehow, or for whom separate district articles were disputed, that I think it is important to define the barrios as places. In part to allow for reasonable treatment of articles about bridges and roads between them, some of which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. For San Juan, a city of 400,000, there are 60 historic bridges or other sites which are covered in Wikipedia. Eventually there should be equivalent coverage of modern arenas, other landmarks, and historic sites, and having the barrios defined is simply necessary, like having vocabulary, to describe them. --Doncram (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google maps shows defined boundaries for numerous neighborhoods including:
  • "Barrio Centro, Ciudad del Este, Paraguay"
  • "Barrio Boqueron, Ciudad del Este, Paraguay"
  • "Barrio Boqueron, Ciudad del Este, Paraguay"
  • "Area 1, Ciudad del Este, Paraguay"
  • "Area 8, Ciudad del Este, Paraguay"

and so on, corresponding to the listed. These must therefore be official districts/communities defined by the city. Try searching Google about Barrio Boqueron, say, and it is apparently a term used in many real estate listings. On basis that Wikipedia is a gazetteer about places, and these are well-defined places/districts/communities, I think this list-article is actually best kept and developed. wp:NGEO. Having the list-article is helpful in heading off stub articles being created for each of the separate places separately, too. Without decent development of the list-article yet, redirect for now is not great but is better than outright deletion. --Doncram (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, each of the current redlinks could be created as redirects to the list-article, then the list-article items changed to simple blacklinks. Then there are no unsightly redlinks.

And, umm, try searching on "departamentos en ciudad del este" or "barrios en ciudad del este". The deletion nominator was only trying to search in English, maybe? --Doncram (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. Inightfox (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck !vote by blocked sock puppet. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Diego D'Andrea[edit]

Carlo Diego D'Andrea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparently completely non-notable lawyer with a non-notable position in a fairly unimportant EU institution in China. I may be wrong to mention this here, but this has all the signs of undisclosed paid editing; Sunshine-Moonlight, were you paid to create this page?. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete run of the mill lawyer and businessman. Subject fails WP:GNG, for while they are named in several sources, these sources by and large do not concern D'Andrea; rather, they focus on entities that D'Andrea is affiliated with, which is an issue given that subjects do not inherit notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) from other, more notable topics. Thus these mentions should not be construed as conferring undue notability on D'Andrea, and I would wager they constitute mentions in passing or trivial mentions. It should also be noted that Wikipedia does not hold businessmen or lawyers to be innately notable, and that chambers of commerce (several of which D'Andrea is a member of) often name members based on financial contributions. Finally, nothing indicates why the subject is individually notable when compared to other corporate lawyers or why anything about D'Andrea has any longterm encyclopedic notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:41, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument for deletion or redirection. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal Power Plant 27[edit]

Thermal Power Plant 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just a generic power plant, not notable for any events. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In-depth references from reliable sources about power plants almost always exist, but may require some digging. Take a look at this Google News search for the power plant's Russian name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it (I do understand Russian language perfectly), including Googling further, and I don't think that very trivial mentions (in sources with questionalble reliability) about very minor accident (like a transformator fire) or stuff like "in 2007–2015 on six stations (ТЭЦ-12, ТЭЦ-16, ТЭЦ-20, ТЭЦ-21, ТЭЦ-26 и ТЭЦ-27) the seven new block-units were introduced" still make this station "notable"... And every secondary source which provides brief historical data about this station basically copies info from primary self-published source, which is this one, which also has highly questionable claims (for example claims about efficiency). But that's just my opinion after researching this for some time... Also, I don't know why this reference was just added today, but it has absolitely NOTHING to do with the station near Moscow since it only talks about different station near certain city in Crimea. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Thank you Eastmain for providing the Russian name. That enabled me to search for scholarly papers. Three immediately came up with the subject name in the title;

• МОЛЧАНОВ К.А., СТРАШНЫХ В.П., ЖЕЖЕРЯ Д.А., МАНЕВСКАЯ OA (2008), ПОЛНОМАСШТАБНЫЙ ТРЕНАЖЕР ДЛЯ ОБУЧЕНИЯ ОПЕРАТИВНОГО ПЕРСОНАЛА ЭНЕРГОБЛОКА ПГУ-450 ТЭЦ-27 ОАО 'МОСЭНЕРГО'" ("A full-scale simulator for training operational personnel of the PGU-450 power unit of CHPP-27 of Mosenergo"), Heat-Power Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 69-76.
• КОПСОВ А.Я et al. (1999), "ОПЫТ РАЗРАБОТКИ И ВНЕДРЕНИЯ ПОЛНОМАСШТАБНОЙ АСУ ТП ЭНЕРГОБЛОКА ПГУ-450Т НА ТЭЦ-27 ОАО 'МОСЭНЕРГО'" ("Experience in developing and implementing a full-scale automated process control system for the PGU-450T power unit at CHPP-27 of Mosenergo"), Electrical Stations, vol. 7, pp. 44-49.
• БАРСКИЙ Л.А., ЗАЙДЕНБЕРГ Л.М., ГЕЛЬФАНД А.М., ГОВОРКО В.П., ТАРАСОВ Д.В (1999), "Автоматизированная система управления цехом химической водоподготовки ТЭЦ-27 Мосэнерго" ("Automated control system for the chemical water treatment shop of Mosenergo TPP-27"), Heat-Power Engineering, vol. 7, pp. 44-49.

There are many more results on gscholar that have the installation name somewhere in the text. Some might be passing mentions, but this is clearly notable. SpinningSpark 15:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Added Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfordjohn56 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This in depth coverage by RIA Novosti is enough for WP:GNG. In addition, sources mentioned by Spinningspark make it notable. Beagel (talk) 19:30, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yes, it's a mess, but AfD is (inevitably) not for cleanup. There is consensus that it's a notable topic, and its title and content are ... content issues. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-communist mass killings[edit]

Anti-communist mass killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is a SYNTH based OR COATRACK. The subject of the article, a purported common cause to the killing of communists across multiple societies, does not exist in any scholarly literature. The only literature I know of, from wide reading over 15 years, is the citation added recently: a "unique" claim in psychosexual history based off a single country study. This does not make a scholarly discourse regarding a theoretical, structural or process across multiple societies. The response to Courtois "Blackbook" was to reject the domain of large scale causes. And if there isn't a discourse on a common cause, then all we have is a list produced by wikipedian editors as an original synthesis of a coatrack Fifelfoo (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes, many communists were killed in a number of countries. The person who killed the largest number of communists was probably Joseph Stalin, maybe Mao, maybe Hitler. However, we need at least a couple of good books which covers this topic as a coherent subject. I do not see them. Google books search returns this result (i.e. the killings by communist governments and a single anticommunist killing in Indonesia). Yes, this subject only exists in connection to mass killings by the communists. Only this latter subject (mass killings by the communists) has indeed every right to exist - based on the books immediately retrieved by the google search. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As WP:OR in esse. Not even a close call. Collect (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This is a major topic that absolutely does exist in scholarly literature on anti-communism. Of course the sources don't necessarily use the phrase "anti-communist mass killings" in talking about it, so doing a simple search for that phrase isn't going to be very helpful in finding relevant information. But there are many sources that talk about the general phenomenon of anti-communist forces killing real or suspected communists across multiple countries - which is the topic of the article. Probably the best source on this subject right now is the book Revolutionaries for the Right: Anticommunist Internationalism and Paramilitary Warfare in the Cold War. It focuses precisely on anti-communist violence and mass killings across multiple countries over an extended period of time.

It's also easy to find chapters or sections dealing with anti-communist mass killings within books and articles that talk about international anti-communism more broadly. Here are just a few examples of sources that dedicate some significant space to this topic. The key to finding them is to use a variety of search terms related to anti-communism and large-scale killings, not merely the phrase "anti-communist mass killings".

Revolutionaries for the Right: Anticommunist Internationalism and Paramilitary Warfare in the Cold War

Death Squads (journal article)

When States Kill (book)

State Violence in East Asia (talks about both communist and anti-communist mass killings, labeling them as such)

The Condor Years: How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terror to Three Continents

Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America

Argentina, the U.S., and the Anti-Communist Crusade in Central America, 1977–1984

Spider Web: The Birth of American Anticommunism

A Century of Revolution: Insurgent and Counterinsurgent Violence during Latin America’s Long Cold War

International Anticommunism before the Cold War: Success and Failure in the Building of a Transnational Right (in "New Perspectives on the Transnational Right")

School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas

Las guerrillas blancas: anticomunismo transnacional e imaginarios de derechas en Argentina y México, 1954–1972

Just because there aren't any books out there with the phrase "anti-communist mass killings" in the title, that doesn't mean there are no books or articles that talk about the topic of mass killings carried out by anti-communists across multiple countries. There are.

The article is not inherently a Synthesis or a Coatrack. The topic exists in reliable sources. Of course, the article as it stands right now may be a Coatrack - I can see it has very serious problems - but that just means it should be improved.

Finally, I don't understand the argument that the article should be deleted because there are no sources talking about "a purported common cause to the killing of communists across multiple societies". The name of the article is anti-communist mass killings, not causes of anti-communist mass killings. And there are sources talking about such killings as an international phenomenon. What does it matter if the sources adequately address the causes or not? If there are reliable sources talking about multiple anti-communist mass killings across multiple countries, then the topic exists in scholarship. It doesn't matter precisely what the sources say about it, as long as they cover the topic. -- Damoclus (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these books actually covers the general subject of anti-communist repressions in all countries. Also, you made only 34 edits in the project and came back after a year of inactivity, specifically to vote here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They do cover the general subject of anti-communist repressions in multiple countries, including most of the ones currently mentioned in the article. I'm not sure what would qualify as all countries. Obviously anti-communist repressions didn't happen in every country. And of course we can disagree about which countries and which repressions fall under this topic (which killings are "mass" killings, for example). Maybe some need to be removed from the article, and others need to be added. The article certainly needs to be improved to follow the sources more closely. But the fact that sources don't necessarily talk about all possible examples doesn't mean the topic doesn't exist. -- Damoclus (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, My very best wishes, how the number of previous edits by a contributor or their sudden reappearance can have any bearing on an AfD. Perhaps there's a policy of which I'm not aware. Could you, please, elaborate? -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (conditionally), although I am not too happy about that article, when I looked at some sources presented above, I have to concede the topic does exist. Although one may argue that Stalin, probably, killed more communists than everybody else (except Hitler), that is hardly a relevant argument. If we compare this article with its twin (MKuCR), this article's topic is crystal clear: "What this article is telling about?" About killings of communists by anti-communists. "Why communists were being killed?" Because they were communists. "Who were perpetrators?" The people who declared their anti-communism. In other words, all these events followed more or less uniform pattern, were motivated by the same factor, and both perpetrators and victims were clearly defined. In this article: Helen Fein. Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823 Stable URL: [2]. The author clearly describes Indonesian genocide as an instance of an broader phenomenon, an ideologically motivated anti-communist genocide.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Upon meditation, I came to conclusion that, if we will use a really strict NOR standards, this article may be considered a synthesis. However, these standards should be applied globally, which means "Mass killings under communist regimes" article should be deleted too, because only few books cover the topic. These books are Red Holocaust, Black Book of Communism and one chapter in the Valentino's "Final solution". However, we already have separate articles for the first two books, so, if strict NOR standard will be applied to this article, MKuCR artcile should go too (and, by the way, no loss of content will occur, because each separate subject discussed in that article already has its own article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AfD is not cleanup — the topic easily meets WP:GNG, the issues of how to present a complex topic in the article within policy guidelines should be discussed on the article's talk page.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Yes, there are sources that treat this as a topic. Yes, AfD is not for cleanup. But this article is godawful: it's a morass of SYNTH and OR, and in my opinion, the best course is to blow it up and start over. As an aside; this is not the counterpart to Mass killings under Communist regimes. That documents government killings by a certain (possibly artificial) category of government; this documents targeted killings of members of a certain ideology. The counterpart to this article would be "Mass killings of anti-communists" (yes, I know that's confusing). Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename -- This is certainly not a pleasant subject, but that does not mean that we should not have an article. We have "main articles" on a number of these, which means that the entries here should be kept modest in length (as most are). However, I would suggest Mass Killings of Communists as the title. The circumstances differ: some were clearly anti-insurgency operations; others may have been like genocides, though they cannot be classified as genocide, since the criterion was political belief, not ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: The problem with that title is that the victims of such killings weren't all communists. Plenty of them were socialists, suspected communists, bystanders, witnesses, suspected sympathizers, etc. Vanamonde (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point accepted, but I suspect there ought to be a title along those lines that would deal with your point: perhaps Mass Killings of Communists and suspects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (conditionally) per Paul Siebert.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article. This is dangerous ground. We have to ignore politics (for some people, such an article, might look like support for communism!) and focus on policy and the encyclopaedic objective.

Clearly, as there have been mass killings by communists against their opponents of whatever persuasion, even apolitical people, there have also been mass killings of communists and sympathizers by anticommunists. This is all trivially, widely, and in-depth presented in historical texts of impeccable credentials. The cases provided above by Damoclus, in the form of already extant Wikipedis articles, are only indicative of the historical references. Propaganda by all sides will always use, of course, an opposite side's killings; but the decision here should not be taken under some kind of fear we'd be "engaging in propaganda." Wikipedia rejects censorship and is unafraid of controversies. -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. : Vanamonde raises an interesting point: When those killed are not all communists, how can we name the killings as "anticommunist"? Well, the same sources that describe such events make quite clear that the incentive behind the killings was the violent repression and elimination of communists, plus anyone deemed to be a "fellow traveler," a "sympathizer," an "ally," etc. In ideological wars, we know that personal differences were also sometimes settled under the guise of ideology. Again, example abound. This, however, does not change the fact the war was based on and conducted on the basis of ideology. The obvious, common title, then, is "communist" and "anticommunist" this or that. -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. The text needs improvement. This by itself is not a reason for deletion, however. -The Gnome (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is a good collection of information about Anti-communist purges, and I don't see any reason to delete either this or the Mass killings under Communist regimes article. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. By definition, a minority of scholars discussing these events in relation to one another is all that is required for the topic to exist. Also, what Seraphim System said.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and verifiable subject, even if the article as it stands today isn't great – but AfD is not cleanup, as mentioned above. /Julle (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable article. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:18, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of pornographic film studios[edit]

List of pornographic film studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:TNT I propose to exclude this article. It's confusing, to unnecessarily separate hetero and homosessual studios, part separated by country another not. In addition to a not referencied description about pornographic studio. It could be corrected, but I prefer to exclude the redirects, associations and history of the page and recreate other more clear. Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notability, fails GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep Easier to improve an article than to destroy it and recreate it. Or just make something totally new and copy it over. No reason to delete. Valid list article, aids in navigation, all entries are blue links. Dream Focus 23:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The proposer makes no valid policy-based rationale for deletion. He gives a rationale for improvement, but AfD is not cleanup. Go ahead and rewrite the article, there is no pressing need for deletion of the history before doing that. As for Davey2010's claim that this does not meet GNG, are we seriously to believe that "pornographic film studios" has never been "discussed as a group or set" (the requirement for lists in WP:N) in reliable sources? That seems highly unlikely. SpinningSpark 15:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is not cleanup; cleanup is needed but this is a very reasonable list topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It's not a perfect article by any means, but it fits perfectly well with anything on Wikipedia's Lists of companies. PvOberstein (talk)
• Strong Keep, since it's simply a list of companies active in a certain field. The field itself is notable. (If anyone thinks otherwise I have a bridge they can buy.) And so is each one of the companies listed: Not a red link in sight. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Movies Worth Watching[edit]

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

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

Completely unreferenced article about a television "series" which aired on a single defunct channel, and was really just the block title for movies. Something like this could certainly qualify for an article if reliable source coverage could be shown to analyze the history and cultural context of the programming block as a thing — see e.g. Saturday Night at the Movies, where there's context and history galore — but it doesn't get an automatic free pass over WP:TVSHOW just for existing, if we can't write or source any real substance about it beyond the mere fact that it existed. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A blog page at the associated online distance learning Athabasca University says the series was hosted by someone named Jacques Benoit, but found zilch coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:47, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merge can always be discussed separately. SoWhy 13:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hagy Belzberg[edit]

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

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

Architect fails WP:BIO. Dewritech (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fund at least three credible sources for the personality who seems to faintly pass WP:ARTIST for being in a hall of fame, winning multiple awards, and being felicitated by the LA holocaust museum. Definitely think he is notable. (This is my first AfD discussion participation.) Cheers! Sir Tragedy (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has won significant awards in the field, was the architect for the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust, and is the founder of Belzberg Architects. That's enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag page for improvement. Stuff like Architectural Review magazine, Interview: Hagy Belzberg]. Plus there's an elegant book on his work (albeit in Italian) that's widely owned by major libraries with architecture collections. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing I hadn't noticed (because I simply took the name and searched it,) is that there does not seem to be a border between the demonstrably notable Hagy Belzberg and Belzberg Architects, which he founded and runs. Therefore suggest Redirect and merge Hagy Belzberg to Belzberg Architects.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaryan Adhikari[edit]

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

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

Non-notable actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, A couple of major roles in minor films, which themselves don't seem to have received much coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject clearly failing WP:NACTOR and WP:NDIRECTOR. Charming presentation, though. -The Gnome (talk) 17:15, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. SKCRIT#1 - withdrawn with no delete votes. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EveryOne Group[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. No RS currently in article. A BEFORE search for "EveryOne Group" on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com finds no RS. No physical address on organization's official page, seemingly suggesting this is just a website that uses superlative phrases to describe its activity, or lack thereof. Chetsford (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Withdraw AfD as nominator. Since the original nomination, Nikoo.Amini has improved the article with references that weren't revealed during my initial BEFORE search and I'm now of the opinion it probably passes our GNG. Chetsford (talk) 06:13, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When Men Get Pregnant[edit]

When Men Get Pregnant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Stub article that has remained unsourced since 2009. The Vietnamese language version is also unsourced. Fails WP:NFILM and GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Obscure shows with no sources on them whatsoever should not be on wikipedia, delete the one on the Vietnamese Wikipedia as well. 344917661X (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say let's invade them. And save it by destroying it. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject entirely missing any kind of verifiable prooof of notability, even on the fringes. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Jayraj[edit]

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

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

Non-notable actress with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and there is no evidence she played a major role in any TV shows listed in the article except Naam Iruvar Namakku Iruvar. Fails WP:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has prominent roles in two television series and so passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget that our motto is 'verifiability, not truth', as defined in our core policy, WP:V so you need to provide reliable sources for validation of the information and proof of the notability. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 02:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Consensus has always been that despite the literary definition of multiple, we seldom consider two-show-wonder(s) to be any notable.It needs to be quite-a-many or otherwise he/she has to secure non-trivial significant coverage in multiple sources, for his/her works.In this case, there is zero non-trivial coverage.∯WBG^converse 12:39, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 13:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Tischman[edit]

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

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

All of the extant articles used for references here are problematic: there are interviews with the subject (see WP:IV) that are not about the subject but rather his work. It seems his work is notable. But the interviews tell us nothing about the author other than that he wrote some comics. The first thing that shows up in a Google search is this very Wikipedia article, followed by interviews about his work and then his publications. Substantive discussion about the subject in reliable independent sources? Am not seeing it. A loose noose (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He's close to meeting the third criteria of WP:AUTHOR, but he's not there yet. As an aside, the ranking of the Wikipedia article in a Google search is immaterial because they're often the top result regardless of the subject. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Author of the page here. I won't vote, but here's why I think he meets AUTHOR #3. Has he created a significant collective body of work? Well, here's what he's written. I'm not going to count all those but it looks like a couple hundred issues over 15 years. Arguably significant. Has his work been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? I'd say so - looks like his work has been covered by Publisher's Weekly, Comic Book Resources, Time, Newsarama, and Broken Frontier. Good enough for me. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The author seems to be notable. His work make him notable.NANExcella (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Cerebellum - 200 comics in 15 years averages out to 1.1 per month. For a writer of monthly comics, that's very underwhelming. None of his work seems to have garnered much acclaim. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regarding WP:NAUTHOR #3, a couple of hundred strikes me as "multiple". Thincat (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thincat:, please note that's a couple hundred issues of monthly comics. Per #3, installments of periodicals shouldn't typically counted separately. A significant portion of his work has also been on pre-established franchises that he did not co-create. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:26, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Voice[edit]

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

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

I'm not finding any nontrivial coverage of this in reliable sources. [3] and [4] list alternative programs, [5] is a changelog (also a forum), [6] is a forum, [7] is also a forum (where someone is asking if anyone still uses this, and received no replies, incidentally enough), and neither the Speex references nor the VSNX reference (archive here, for your convenience) in this article even mention this program. A rather gross failure of our beloved GNG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Should not delete the article but can place a refimprove tag.NANExcella (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NANExcella: Sorry for the very late reply. I confess I fail to understand the logic of this vote. So far as I can tell, there is no sourcing to improve it with, which is why I claim it fails GNG and why I nominated it for deletion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG. SpinningSpark 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there is no verifiable notability, on the basis of WP:NCORP or WP:NWEB. The current sources number two dead and two that are about something else. WP:BEFORE scares up fifty articles about hairstyles for every one about the subject, generously. -The Gnome (talk) 17:22, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnet Fain[edit]

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

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

Not meeting minimum inclusion requirements of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Most of the available references are from local news media which is not enough to demonstrate notability. Hitro talk 09:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only non-trivial reference is a local obituary; nothing in the article suggests any SNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poor references. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:28, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raaikishori[edit]

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

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

Could not find a single reliable source.  — FR ⁺ 07:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found nothing in English (even the TV network's site no longer works), perhaps there is something in Bengali? @Winged Blades of Godric: is the only Bengali-speaking AFD regular I can think of. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Allen Brooks[edit]

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

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 07:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though a lot may not be written about him, he has been in numerous american tv shows throughout the years. Livinginthepink (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete having lots of bit parts does not add up to notability. Does not pass the multiple significant roles in notable producetions guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the has worked in so many shows makes him notable enough for wikipedia. Notability does not mean "being famous". Notability means having recognition in a field, which he has as evidenced by the parts he has played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.195 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — 67.164.93.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I can't find significant coverage about him, fails [[WP:NACTOR]] as well as [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]], delete per [[WP:DEL8]]. Sam Sailor 18:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, as a search turned up no quality sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:47, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 13:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kilimanjaro (song)[edit]

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

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

As per WP:NSONGS. Information from this may be transferred to Enthiran (soundtrack). Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the song has received numerous awards, therefore it should satisfy WP:NSONG #2. Hzh (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for subject obviously failing the relevant criteria of notability. The criterion #2 in WP:NSONG states that the song muct have won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. None of that has happened, per sources cited. -The Gnome (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The awards won by the song would the equivalent of major awards for the language of the song concerned (example given is the Grammis, the equivalent for Swedish songs), therefore satisfies NSONG#2. Hzh (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I'd be honestly glad if you or anyone else could direct me to a Wikipedia policy that considers as equivalent one of the awards specifically named in WP:NSONG with any one the awards won by the contested subject. Or, at the very least, some Wikireliable sources that claim such equivalence. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The honour of India's equivalent for the Grammys may go to Filmfare. Although this song may have received a Filmfare nomination for its singer, it is best kept within the soundtrack article to help the latter's expansion. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the name Filmfare Awards should indicate it is an award for films, therefore its equivalent would be the Oscars, not Grammy. Hzh (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In so many words, WP:NSONG still not met. -The Gnome (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'd find that topping the chart [8], winning awards, and multiple sources [9][10][11] would fit a number of criteria of NSONG. Hzh (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were I to look into the source you provided, Hzh, I'd find that the subject song has not been "topping the charts" but "ruling the charts," which, of course, is but another promotional term used by agents, fans, and other involved parties to big up the success of a song. Perhaps the contested song topped the charts, indeed; we need clearer reporting than such jargon.

As to the sources you cited, I do not see what they have to do with anything: The subject still fails WP:NSONG. You might believe there's something wrong, e.g. cultural bias, with the WP:NSONG policy, but we decide on the basis of policy and not personal viewpoints.

P.S. Not that the sources you cited amount to anything: The first and the second use almost identical wording (e.g. "Chinmayi, who sang the duet along with Javed Ali, said she was initially apprehensive as she did not know if her voice would be retained," etc), the result no doubt of the promotional efforts by the singer's camp. Kudos for that, folks, but no Wikipedia cigar. And the third source is a book about Tamil cinema where the song is name-dropped once among the other songs in the Enthiran movie. -The Gnome (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue that ruling the chart does not mean topping the chart, then please note that charting by itself can be notable. The other sources do concur that the song was a popular song, in addition to the awards won. Hzh (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, the book Pride of Tamil Cinema, to an extent, is a case of WP:Circular, hence it fails WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by WP:Circular, can you show how it copied from Wikipedia? And can you address the question of the awards? Hzh (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh, see here. This happened after usage of the book was discouraged during the failed FAC of Mullum Malarum (its status as a circular book was discovered during the FAC, not before). Now getting back to the delete discussion, I still am not in favour of the Kilimanjaro song having a separate article as it violates WP:CONTENTFORK. All its content is best used at Enthiran (soundtrack) as that can help expand the soundtrack article and prevent its merger with the parent article. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:CONTENTFORK when it deals with a different topic and passes criteria for WP:NSONG for having charted and won major awards. Hzh (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hzh, I will certainly argue that "ruling the chart does not mean topping the chart." Not the first time I come across promo fluff and managerial euphemisms. As to your "charting by itself can be notable," then you must think a song that breaks the Top 100 at the bottom slot has "charted" and is, thus, notable. Well, I disagree. -The Gnome (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that a reporter on the Times of India (which by the way gives Top 20 music charts since 2010) would consider breaking the top 100 as ruling the chart. The journalists at the newspaper should know what is on their music charts. Hzh (talk) 20:33, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayesh A. Punater[edit]

Jayesh A. Punater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable businessman. 2Joules (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails notability; article is basically a curriculum vitae/resume. Quis separabit? 18:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - run of the mill, non-notable businessman who fails WP:BIO and GNG. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing resumes.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 21:33, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ayertey Odonkor[edit]

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

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

Non notable advisor etc. whose thesis etc has been published by Scholars press. I don't think that this makes him notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for subject failing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. An economist who's a member of the AEA, also serving on the advisory committee of a publishing house. Nothing there. -The Gnome (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:01, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Hammadeh (lawyer)[edit]

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

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

Being a lawyer for a powerful company does not make a person notable. Notability is not inherited. 2Joules (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can't vote for deletion at present, but I see the signs of a promotional intent. Deb (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:AUTHOR; lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Just a promotional CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A run-of-the-mill lawyer who doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Reads like a resume. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:02, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus Before renominating, consider merging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah as an alternative per WP:ATD. SoWhy 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layton Utah Temple[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. 2Joules (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom may be unaware that we do have articles on Category:Proposed buildings and structures in the United States.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:E.M.Gregory I am aware of the category. My concern was that at present we are not even aware of the location of the building. The only information is that the mayor knows the location, and he may divulge it in the future. That is why I wanted to remove this until at least the location and other information is known. 2Joules (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I just added a news article about the site to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This isn’t really about speculation or rumormongering. The church announced its building a temple there so it’s going to happen in all likelihood. If the standard is to wait until ground is broken or they start going vertical, I guess that’s fine. But I would beef up the refs, especially as a couple are dead. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All sources are primary and article is WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice on recreation in the future. SportingFlyer talk 23:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We could move it to Proposed Layton Utah Temple for the nonce, and move it back to Layton Utah Temple after the dedication. The fact is that all Mormon Temples can be sourced to meet WP:SIGCOV. There will be WP:RS coverage of the location, of the construction, of the pre-opening opportunity for non-Mormons to visit, of the dedication and of the Temple going forward - there always is. There is alreay local TV coverage of speculation about exactly where it will be located; the Mayor says that the Church has already bought the land and he knows where it is but he's not telling. I have met Mormon temples before at AfD and, well, they can always be sourced, they just can. It is simply more efficient to KEEP the article and let it grow along with the temple. And it is better for the project to keep an article on a major church that people will expect us to have an article about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing the article won't be able to be sourced if a location is announced - but in order to pass WP:GEOFEAT it needs the classic require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. All we have now is the announcement (which has gotten some coverage) which may also violate WP:NOTNEWS. Best to follow procedure here and wait until a location is announced/construction starts. SportingFlyer talk 19:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft-ify until the specific location is public; I don't see how WP:GEOFEAT can apply at this stage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have properly sourced the article. I suppose we could draftify, but it seems more user-friendly to just keep it. There really is no doubt that a Mormon temple will be notable, and, if they cancel it, will be extremely notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping it would be reasonable as well; as you say it will definitely be notable one way or another in a few year's time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steeleye[edit]

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

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

Non notable company created last year. There may be COI issues here as well. 2Joules (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Clearly WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable corporation, lack of significant coverage. Some of the material sounds promotional. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:05, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rio Rancho Public Schools. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Rancho Cyber Academy[edit]

Rio Rancho Cyber Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I know that schools get a free pass, but I don't think that non notable online schools get the same treatment. 2Joules (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This venture features in a 2012 Technological Horizons In Education article ([12]  – via HighBeam (subscription required) ), though not as the main subject of the article, and there is also some coverage here but a GDPR-block prevents its evaluation. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears to be a small alternative school (158 students), but a secondary school (grades 6-12) nevertheless. [13] If there's nothing else to say beside that it exists, then Redirect to Rio Rancho Public Schools which is the district article. It's an actual school though, with a building. Here's a news article about the district [14] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - looks to fail GNG, and there's no content in the article to save for crying out loud (an unsourced statement that it exists, full stop... is there really no CSD for that?). If people are intent on having WP:LINKFARM/WP:DIRECTORY pages like Rio Rancho Public Schools that list this, then I guess redirect. Basically just using Wikipedia to link people to an organization's website, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rio Rancho Public Schools - Valid search term, Redirectsarecheap and all that. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rio Rancho Public Schools#High schools - Useful search term. No valid reason to delete rather than redirect has been given. There is sourced material that can be added to the target article. Just Chilling (talk) 18:13, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skinnipin[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because the subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Apart from the notability issues identified the article currently seems to be just a last of names and draft sections. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article could have possibly been Speedy Deleted due to no assertion of notability whatsoever. Apparently this band was active in the 80s so it will be difficult to find online sources. But with various advanced searches I still can find no indication that this band even existed beyond some recent social media posts of dubious nostalgia value. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:08, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 13:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzion[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, for subject clearly failing WP:NMUSICIAN. Strings have tightened up. -The Gnome (talk) 17:33, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no objection to being recreated as a redirect if and when one of the artists has their own article. SoWhy 13:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristjana & Agnar[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StraussInTheHouse hello and I note your concern about the sources. I will point out that there is a longer article on the is.wikipedia for Kristjana Stefánsdóttir, and that Kristjana & Agnar are considered to be important figures on the Icelandic Jazz topic. Some sources I have found for you to look at for this article are. visir radio RUV.

Kristjana has been awarded the Icelandic Theater Award three times, and nominated for the Icelandic Music Awards several times. I recommend looking at Kristjana's own overview of her awards. It does also pick out some of the more positive reviews of her work.

I have focused on Kristjana here because I consider that it is easier to establish notability for her. Looking at Agnar should be done as well, so here are some sources. Iceland Music Ismus, less is avilable on the world wide web for Agnar. I would not have chosen to group them together as has been done as it does not appear to be a pairing in the careers of either musician above that of each musicians own relevance.

Do let me know what you think. Frayæ 20:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Frayæ, as you said, your comments and links are about Kristjana Stefánsdóttir, whereas this discussion is about whether the collective "Kristjana & Agnar" meets the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. I am not seeing anything better than the brief All About Jazz review/notice of their album together, which is not really enough. You may be better creating an article specifically about Kristjana Stefánsdóttir, using the references which you have identified? AllyD (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be perfectly good enough. Frayæ 12:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete this article with the intention of making an article about Kristjana Stefánsdóttir instead. Frayæ 12:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 13:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JBC (group)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BAND due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 21:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, can find much of substance about this band. Renata (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:41, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abea[edit]

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

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

Article makes mention of award but no significant coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and doesn't meet WP:RS Edidiong (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this is indeed "the oldest olive-oil maker" in Greece, it should have mentions aplenty at least in the Greek media. A search there, with the help of some tools, reveals almost nothing except routine mentions in lists, etc, showing essentially that the company exists and is active. It seems all we have are primary sources. -The Gnome (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A notable, historical industry of Crete. It is an important part of the industrial history of Crete and the urban development of Chania; see this article in the website of local daily of Chania, el:Χανιώτικα Νέα; also this (@ Crete News.gr). About the importance of the present day company in Crete -with a short glance in its history- see this article, published in the Greek mainstream daily Eλευθεροτυπία. ——Chalk19 (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, Chalk19, why not add those sources to the article? See below for more. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: I love how those !voting keep because of historical or other reasons, and supplying sources here at AFD, would not be more beneficial to just supply those sources on the article, and then !voting "Keep" because of notability sources now on the article. I am stating this because I have seen several instances when "delete !votes" are advised to find sources and improve the article. It seems this would be a two way street. Otr500 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that, in some such cases, the editors who suggest Deletion are advised to WP:FIXIT. Which is actually the policy about "being bold" in Wikipedia editing, under a different title. In reality, the admonition to boldly improve an article loses currency when we're going through an AfD process. Improving the contested article and, if possible, stopping the process is rather up to those who are suggesting Keep. As to the much suffering WP:BEFORE, that's an obligation of the nominator; not of AfD participants. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as it stands now. Feel free to ping me if anyone adds some good references and I will happily look at it again. Ifnord (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have reformed the article. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it is notable in Greek region, not sure about the authenticity of these resources on EN Wikipedia. Mia Watson (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an historic company. We've usually been much less restrictive here with just-founded embryonic firms. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the "oldest olive oil processing plant" in a given country is a tenuous but sufficient claim of significance in my mind. Sources are okay. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep on account of subject's history and position in its field, though that is barely passably documented. -The Gnome (talk) 10:57, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 13:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker Island (video game)[edit]

Tinker Island (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article contains three reviews as references. Of those sources, two of them have a "Submit your game for review" option ([15] [16]). One of which has the following: Submitting your game to Edamame Reviews is a great way to reach a highly targeted audience of iOS and Android gamers and industry influencers who view our site multiple times each day. This quite obviously casts doubt on its reliability and independence of the subject. For these reasons I believe this doesn't satisfy WP:NGAME. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - firstly, disclosure, I am the AfC editor who accepted this article, so obviously there is a degree of bias with that. Hopefully I can make a suitable case despite that.

The article was certainly right on the boundary of getting through, but that was somewhat more because of verificability rather than straight-up notability. Notability for video games is always a nuisance (remember, WP:NGAME is an essay - a good one, but not a supplement. It's primarily GNG that governs it). This is compounded because judging the sources independence is a nuisance. It's not surprising that most game critic sites ask for them - they need a sufficient turnover to survive. Remember all news websites ask for news. This can create both bias (being positive so everyone submits) and non-bias (being independent so users actually come to the site).

My judgement was that Edamame was on the wrong side, while Gamezebo was on the right. I felt this was sufficient (with the Player.One review to prove it was verifiable but I also had a hunt elsewhere to cover notability. , Source 1, Source 2 (needs google translate) Source 3 are the best alternate sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First off, I agree with Nosebagbear that this is a somewhat borderline case. But, I think that the Player.One review in combination with the infogame.vn review establishes notability with respect to WP:GNG. Additionally I think that Game Zebo is also a reliable source for this article because in that very page you linked they say "Do not offer to pay for reviews. There is a big, fat line between editorial and advertising here at Gamezebo." I have no reason to believe that they are lying, especially given the tone of the rest of that page. Asking for and receiving game review copies in exchange for the possibility of a review is common practice in video game journalism and doesn't compromise the independence or reliability of the source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The VG/RS search engine (WP:VG/SE) , based on sources identified as reliable for video gaming topics, indicates that this topic probably does not meet the bar for notability, whatever sources have been provided above. Do all of the works provided above indicate that they meet the bar to be identified as reliable? I would guess not. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of points here. Firstly, WP:VG/SE provides a useful list (thanks, I'll refer to it in future) of both inclusions and exclusions - sources 1, 2 and 3 don't appear on either. Meaning that even if you took the list as gospel, you'd still need to come to your own conclusion on each of them. Secondly, I don't need each of them to meet the bar - if we take gamezebo as given since it's on the list and seems reliable by personal inspections from several of us, that only requires one more source. There are 4 in the offing (not counting edamame) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list is mostly drawn from WP:VG/S--the search engine is just useful for using those sources trivially. Indeed, we need to come to a conclusion on the other three sources. As I said (because I have not investigated), I would guess the other three do not meet the reliability bar (based solely on their names--only one has widespread TLD [.com] and that one looks entirely domain specific, sites of which do not often indicate reliability or which indicate unreliability). Now, if Gamezebo is the only source, and the GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources discussing the topic in depth (i.e., reviews or substantial previews), that bar is certainly not met, even including the above sources. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Izno: WP:VG/S explicitly states that "This [sources] list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination" so the fact that a source isn't on that list and doesn't have a standard TLD is enough to judge it unreliable? Player.One is a Newsweek Media Group organization with a professional editorial staff and no indication that it is unreliable as it uses the same editorial practices as the other branches of the Newsweek Group. It is a published, independent authority from its subjects which should be more than sufficiently reliable for the standards of WP:GNG. That in combination with gamezebo, which it seems you agree is a passable source, is sufficient for passing GNG. But just in case, I'll go over the sources.
        • Edamame is unreliable as it accepts money for publishing articles.
        • Pocket Gamer's content is a republished press release
        • Infogame.vn is in Vietnamese which doesn't change the fact that it is a reliable source. It has a professional editorial staff and their advertising policies don't indicate any issues that would interfere with the independence of their reviews.
        • AppCheaters appears to just be a one person blog-like operation
        • Player.One is reliable as discussed above
        • It appears we agree Gamewebo is reliable, as it has editorial oversight and independence
      • That's three reliable sources providing in depth, independent coverage. This is sufficient for passing GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Like @Izno: says, it doesn't meet the WP:VG standard. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How so - if Gamezebo, Player.One & Infogame aren't all on the WP:VG list then that is neither a positive or a negative ruling on them. How do those not on the list fail to meet the standard exactly? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep On the VG sources issues, unless we have previously discussed the source and determined it unreliable, not being on the list doesn't mean the source is not reliable; we'd have to evaluate those sources in more depth, but for purposes of an AFD discussion, these one offs can be considered on their own. On the specific game, there does seem to be some minimal coverage, one of the first Kongergate titles for mobile, and some of the mobile-based websites do discuss it. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage but there's enough to give this the benefit of doubt. --Masem (t) 17:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If sources that have been determined to count as reliable sources give it significant coverage, then it meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 19:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough significant coverage for this game to pass WP:GNG. We require significant, reliable coverage in independent sources. Sources mention the game, but that's hardly enough to show it's notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep as technically having multiple reliable independent (somewhat) in-depth sources. The sources cited in the article: JayIsGames is good, if short; GameZebo is okay; Player.one looks good and seems like a good source without a more thorough examining; TouchArcade is basically a directory entry; AppCheaters doesn't look good, lacking usual reliability hallmarks; Pocket Gamer is a press release copy; not sure about InfoGame, but I don't see any reliability hallmarks (such as about or editorial page or something), language barrier notwithstanding. So that makes 2 decent GNG sources and possibly another plus some extra sourcing for content. I guess it's the utmost minimal bar for GNG, which it barely passes. If the developer ever gets an article, merge. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep along similar lines of Masem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:46, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saichon Radomkit[edit]

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

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

Contested prod without rationale or improvement. No indication he, or his band, was notable. And searches did not turn up the in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG, and nothing indicates he passes WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG. It is possible that non-English sources exist but I was unable to find any using Google Translate and the Thai Wikipedia didn't provide any either. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Was lead vocal of one of the top band in Thailand 40 years ago. So online references will be hard to find. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The band is notable, but whether his post-Innocent career is significant enough to warrant a standalone article seems more borderline. There's this 2015 interview in Naewna (dead link[17], but mirrored here), but I couldn't find much recent coverage that wasn't about the band's reunion concert. In any case, if we had an article for the band this could be redirected there. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I am reluctant to say that he is totally non-notable as an individual performer because there may be Thai sources that I cannot find and/or translate. But here are some recent Thai media sources in English: [18], [19], [20] -- indicating that the gentleman is now a nostalgia performer representing his 80's band. He would be eligible for a redirect that band's article if there was one. Otherwise, we need Thai experts to track down reliable sources for his other work. He may be accomplished and respected in his country but we need reliable sources for verification. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Qutaibah al Majali [edit]

Abu Qutaibah al Majali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) No significant coverage for this person, only minor mentions. Does not appear to be notable per WP:Notability. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Disagree there is wide coverage in both Arab and English media and i added some resources now. He has many points that support his notability: first he is who recruited zarqawi! Second he was manager of Maktab al-Khidamat in jordan. Third is that two of his sons were with isis. I think he is notable in this regard--مصعب (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- article mostly discusses why people he knows are notable or what they have been up to, not what the article's topic has done to be notable. Can't find good sourcing, and first two hits on google are to this WP article. Articles cited don't even mention him. Apparently fails WP:N ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability is not inherited to notable people the subject knows or the organization he works for. The insignificant coverage that is left out there leads me to believe this is a clear-cut failure of GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non notable delete Heshiv (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heshiv, TheGracefulSlick, and El cid, el campeador: i  added some new resources showing notability (his activity was related to 2016 Al-Karak attack). What's your opinion now?--مصعب (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@مصعب: The article talks about Qutayba, his son. His father is still briefly mentioned and not discussed at length. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no. I added new 3 resources. There's 2 paragraphs talking about him and not just mentioned briefly--مصعب (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - The article is a bit link-bombed, but there does seem to be significant, independent, in-depth coverage, such as here and here. The Arabic language version of the article, [21], provides a bit more detail, giving a good impression of the encyclopedic nature of the subject. I !vote weak because I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be sure about this last point, if being a recruiter and unofficial spiritual leader of a group of unclear size is really very encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:32, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maroghini[edit]

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

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

Contested prod, rationale was "Some RS can be found on GNews and GBooks but none cover him in any significant detail. Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO" StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created this article in 2006. Someone replaced the stub with a copyvio, which I reverted in 2009. It's not a great article, but I think it passes notability, and wiki is not paper. Here's something from 2016 that describes him as "Internationally acclaimed master drummer Maroghini" [22] He is a teacher and author. I'm sure the article could be improved. Andrevan@ 18:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also couldn't find any suitable sources. The above-mentioned article isn't even about the guy, it's about a Caribbean-themed event. Maroghini gets mentioned in a photo caption, not even in the text of the article itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a flickr photoset with a number of press clippings[23]. I don't really know how to obtain Jamaican newspapers. I only mentioned that photo caption because it refers to him as "internationally acclaimed," so at least someone is claiming that. Here is a Jamaica Gleaner article which is specifically about Maroghini[24] Andrevan@ 18:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry, I can't find any good substantial coverage. Non-starter on notability; clearly does not satisfy MUSICIAN or GNG. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1 because the nominator proposed merging and no one else voted to delete or redirect. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 00:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topcoder Open[edit]

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

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

Should be a Merge and Redirect to Topcoder. This event does not appear to be notable - given a lack of coverage in Reliable Sources, but company itself is and so a slimmed down version of this page can be merged there without long list of dubiously notable results. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 21 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.