< 25 June	27 June >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.460 Rowland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

@460 Rowland and Atlantic306: At 20:50, 25 June 2018‎ speedy-delete-tagged as advertisement by User:Atlantic306. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several hits on DuckDuckGo, appears to be notable. This article needs clean-up, not deletion. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletecoverage is not significant and independent or in depth enough to meet inclusion criteria. And it is artspam.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional for the company and product and does not have significant coverage in reliable sources so does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a WP:CATALOG entry on an unremarkable firearm. Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG as of now. Even extensive google news search didn't give anything substantial. Dial911 (talk) 04:13, 3 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Das[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources that establish notability - fails WP:GNG and potentially WP:NACADEMIC. HunterM267 ^talk 19:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to have been long maintained as a resume listing by the subject. 2601:188:180:11F0:CDA0:623:849E:B032 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He's not Prem Das Rai, and he's not Paul C. Adams either, although the second one took longer to figure out than the first. There's some mentions in woo type books, but they seems to be fairly passing and primarily about other people where this guy is on the sidelines. I can't really tell if any of his tapes are really things or just fairly amateur recordings. Some of them are apparently "published" by the Esalen Institute, which is pretty woo. The other publishers I couldn't really tell you anything about. His publications look to be either self-published or otherwise fairly fringy not-terribly-important works overall. His website, phew boy. But overall from what I can tell, he tinkered in electronics, did drugs, decided to go to India, then Mexico, and then became a professional back country hiker...and...guy who writes about how radar, quantum physics, and our innermost desires explain UFOs. Also shameless self-promotion is shameless. GMG ^talk 20:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting how DuckDuckGo returns more hits for an insurance agent by the same name than for the subject of this article. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like an interesting guy, but I can't find any evidence that he meets the GNG. Looks like a vanity piece/resume. — sparklism ^hey! 12:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not suitable for encyclopedia. Dial911 (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE- Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Let's not forget that Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO. Jmertel23 (talk)•

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Burton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Robert Burton (actor)

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

Non-notable actor / real estate agent. I nominated this last year, but it was closed as no consensus, due to limited participation. Natg 19 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. As an actor, seems to have been half a step up from an extra. The autobio suggests a much more successful career as a Manhattan realtor, but still no RS coverage. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG as of now. Dial911 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution of Dignity[edit]

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

Plain google-search gives us a bunch of events, that were labeled by the media just like that. Virtually any unrest that is occuring nowadays is called "Revolution of Dignity" immediately by its perpetrators, before any solid outcome is clearly visible. The issue is whether this page should remain a disambiguation page, a redirect to one particular event out of a number highlighted by media, or should it be deleted permanently. ВоенТех (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as a useful WP:DISAMBIG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be useful, each linked article must actually mention the term (WP:DABMENTION). As the page and its linked articles currently stand, only one article (Tunisian Revolution) actually uses the phrase. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that calling Euromaidan a "revolution of dignity" is supported by books and academic articles. We should probably clean this one up instead of deleting it.13:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)

Academic sources prior to 2014 do not even mention Ukraine as an example, for it didn't happened there yet. cf "A Revolution of Dignity and Poetry (2012)": "[...] slogan chanted in Tunisia in January, then in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Syria". It appears that Honduran President Roberto Suazo was the first to coin the phrase in 1981, using it with a political pretext (referring to his desired election as a "revolution of dignity", which turned out to be another blah-blah-blah, when elected he obviously forgot his promises and nothing really happened.) In 1983 the first book of the same name was published (though in Spanish,) which claimed that Suazo's "revolution of dignity" in Honduras was already fait accompli, which appears to be far from true, meaining that "books and academic articles," which use that phrase seriously instead of just reciting slogans that were used on the streets, are biased to say the least. ВоенТех (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a mere dab-page. Assuming a RS can be found for the application of the title to each of the events, there is no harm in keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful WP:DISAMBIG. I took a close look in response to comments of other editors. But this term needs a dab-page because the term has been so widely popular. For example, on Ukraine, see:[1] or Olga Bertelsen, Revolution and War in Contemporary Ukraine: The Challenge of Change (Columbia University Press, 2017) Who describes: " Euromaiden... which came to be known also as the Revolution of Values, or the Revolution of Dignity..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks to researchers like Olga Bertelsen, Euromaiden tends to be presented as a pivotal event in a history of mankind, overshadowing the American revolution, the battles of Ivojima and Normandy combined. Folks down there may be driven into a delusion that the entire universe revolves around them. ВоенТех (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if media decides to call every revolution a Revolution of Dignity, then so be it, our job is to record how journalists and outlets are describing these events, even if we disagree. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Ottoshade (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right, if the result would be to keep, I'd like to ask the admin in charge to rename the article Revolution of dignity for it's not a title of a book or something. ВоенТех (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The included entries need to have an article to link to and that Wikipedia article needs to MOS:DABMENTION the "revolution of dignity", "dignity revolution", or whatever. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it silly? Maybe. But no less than other monikers. The DAB is useful given various disparate events have been named in this manner.Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 1 July 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gemar Mills[edit]

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

I'm really not seeing significant coverage for this one, beyond some one-off localised coverage, and a few other passing mentions where he is a spokesperson for a school. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered by The Atlantic & Fortune.com Joaomufc (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established through coverage about Mills already in the article, particularly in The Atlantic, plus coverage elsewhere, including here. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources provided to indicate notability. Tinton5 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A big paragraph in the article was copyvio case. I removed it and now it seems to be okay to remain on Wikipedia as references have some reliable sources. Dial911 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FuneralBooker[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, coverage is routine and unremarkable. Marquardtika (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Yet another online marketplace startup using Wikipedia for advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing is poor, and a simple Google search is similarly weak. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 02:41, 4 July 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. Not the strongest participation but after three relists we are where we are. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banglar Shera Poribaar[edit]

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

Another of those non-notable Bengali programs...besides two Times of India sources covering the initial promotion of the show (focusing more on the actors present than on the show itself) no other sources were found.... Delete. — F R ⁺ 06:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failing notability guidelines. Strikerforce^Talk 15:22, 2 July 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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Marzin[edit]

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

non-notable business profile Heliotom (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere profiling, absolutely non-encyclopedic. Dial911 (talk) 04:24, 3 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Action Button By Speakable[edit]

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

Notability concerns for this company/product. The coverage appears to be only of the launch, and only because Bono's daughter is involved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional. Deb (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails as entirely promotional and also, none of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 23:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP due to sources being just routine coverage of announcements and the like, plus WP:NOT a free advertising webhost. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 4 July 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Rahim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:DIRECTOR because he has directed only one film. He received an award but I would say its a not a major one so It does not help establish WP:N remotely.

I would say director of a single movie is not something that would be expected to have an article on Wikipedia, unless he meet GNG as well. The subject received press coverage (Trivial mentions) due to his debut movie but lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete fails WP:DIRECTOR Heshiv (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:DIRECTOR the sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG. The tribune article is a puff piece that claims he is an "Ace" director whilst talking about his upcoming directorial debut. Seems like a contradiction in terms. Dunya news is routine coverage of an upcoming film, and the other is a passing mention in an interview followed by a list. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 30 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 to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and there is actually more support for keeping this article. bd2412 T 00:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War[edit]

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

This list is just "listify-ing" the same prose info that exists at Avengers: Infinity War#Box office. Per a few discussions (here and here), there is no need to separate out the records at this time, in this format (as the info is not unruly as prose currently) and does not give any additional info that does not exist in the prose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violation of WP:PROMO, basically a self-aggrandizing article that doesn't accomplish anything that can't be stated in the main article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much hosting BOXOFFICECRUFT/IMDb trivia. This really isn't needed here at all. Nate • (chatter) 03:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been other Wikipedia articles for separating and elaborating on more records than is exhaustively possible on the main movie article. I will not solely rely on those articles as other stuff exists, but to demonstrate that this is not a new phenomenon. Particularly after Avengers: Infinity War kept breaking records, the news media certainly took notice and continued writing articles on the subject. Not every movie that is released has this type of coverage in numerous reliable sources relating to the records that it has broken for its Box Office Debut. I argue that due to this consistent media coverage and the general notability independent of the movie warrants this separate article. It is not in violation of WP:PROMO as it was not intended for promotion, but to provide an encyclopedic explanation of the various box office records that Infinity War has broken. Nearly all of the records have solid sourcing behind them, are not published with Marvel's PR team, and instead written by volunteer editors seeking to contribute to the encyclopedia. That is pretty much the opposite of WP:PROMO. This type of article cannot be simply merged with the parent movie article as it has broken more records than is feasible to include in the parent article, and if forced to merge, would tip the balance for content already on the movie article. I recommend that this article be kept for those reasons. Tutelary (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Making an article touting the success of a recent movie falls into PR material regardless of whether general outlets cover it independently. If Infinity War remains a seminal movie in another decade or two I might see the case for an article like this. However, there's nothing special about a movie this expensive breaking box office records, after all the population of the Earth continues to increase while movie makers continue to consolidate ever more money into big superhero movies._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have a totally different view of what PR material is. When I think of PR material, I think of conflicts of interest, genuine promotion from a PR team, and attempting to influence Wikipedia editors through legal action. Putting 100% true, backed up box office records on a single page is not PR material. That's just an encyclopedia being an encyclopedia. Tutelary (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that detailing the success of a film is in no way promotional. That just doesn't make sense. Do you want us to pretend that there was no positive response to any film in any way so as to avoid sounding like we are promoting any film? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ I am not going to argue strongly for this, but I do see some value in it. I personally see this sort of article as a separate thing from the actual film box office section. So regardless of what that section covers in terms of box office records, do I think that someone will get somethign out of reading this article as is? Well, if it is well maintained and focuses on actually significant records, then I think it could be very useful for someone interested specifically in the box office of films who is looking for a professional compilation of them for this film. The big concern I have is the list falling into trivia, so I would want to be sure that whoever is maintaining the page has a clear idea of what sort of records are actually worth the time of our readers. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep. The more I've thought of it, and especially after reading GoneIn60's coment below, the more potential I see in this article. I think there may be some who are underestimating it a bit simply because it isn't a very common thing. One thing to think about: are you sure every record listed here is really already at the film article? And if so, do you believe it is going to stay that way? Box office sections often get a bit unruly when the film is in theatres, but over time they are one of those things that people are going to want to get right down for better readability (especially for a GA, which will apply here). - adamstom97 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOTSTATS, and the fact the info already exists in the appropriate spot: the film's article. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While I didn't cross-check all the items in the list, the second one I checked, "Biggest April opening weekend" under US & Canada, wasn't mentioned in that context anywhere in the article. The argument that it could be mentioned is irrelevant. Once the number of records grows to a certain point, as is often the case with many blockbuster films, a list can be quite helpful in separating out the film's accomplishments. Trying to incorporate dozens of records in prose becomes tedious, not to mention the negative impact it begins to have on the article's readability. In fact, having a list that you can put in a hatnote at the top of the "Box office" section might alleviate the need to bloat the article, and instead allow editors the option to offload some of the minor accomplishments to the list. Tons of potential on a keep here. The WP:PROMO claim is a stretch at best, and the WP:NOTSTATS claim isn't even in the same ballpark considering the data has context and references. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is well sourced and too large to be contained in the main article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. BOVINEBOY2008 13:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bovineboy2008: - This list meets the criteria given at LISTCRUFT for when a standalone list is generally appropriate. Which one(s) of the 12 meanings listed apply to this list? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - #1: The list was created just for the sake of having such a list - There was no building of this list in the article, and most of this is a regurgitation of what is on BoxOfficeMojo.
  - #2: The list is of interest to a very limited number of people - Only pertains to people direly attached to the box office records of one individual film.
  - #11: The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date. - These records will either be broken by another film at some point (probably by its own sequel), or will be added to by more and more specific criteria: "Highest-grossing superhero film outside the US and Canada market" could become "Highest-grossing superhero film featuring characters from previous stand-alone films outside the US and Canada market" BOVINEBOY2008 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All referenced and valid accomplishments that wouldn't all fit in the main article, so as in other cases of this Tutelary mentioned, it needs its own separate article. Dream Focus 17:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out a few of the records in the list not at the film article pertain to those the film's rating. Specifically to those, per WP:FILMRATING, we don't allow mention of a film's rating on a normal article, so I don't see why we should be mentioning records for them here, especially since there is nothing noteworthy about it being PG-13 (unlike say Deadpool, where it being R-rated and earning what it did was notable). So you take those away, and again, you left with essentially the exact same content at the film article, just in prose, which is just another reason why I don't feel this article should exist. I would also like to clarify that I am not against separate box office records lists in general (as I know some other do exist), but in this particular instance, I do not see the necessity for the split at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I also thought of something else to add to my comment. Black Panther (another MCU film) is currently going through a GA review, and the reviewer suggested reducing the article, and that film's box office info is extensive, since it also broke many records. We are potentially heading too creating a list, but in doing so, the prose at the film article will be greatly reduced, supporting the extensive list. I wanted to point that out incase that happens and someone notices and feel I'm being hypocritical in supporting that and not this one. I'm not trying to be, as my gripe with this separate list is I don't feel the need for the prose at the film article to be reduced at this time to justify the list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comments above are exactly in line with the benefit you're witnessing at Black Panther's GA review. There are a few benefits in play, with reducing clutter in the main article chiefly among them. The clutter in the article surrounding these records may not be as apparent or as severe to editors that frequently work on film articles, but when 80% or 90% of a section is line after line of one record after another, it's hard to ignore how exhaustive that read must be for someone just skimming the article for information. Also on your point about film ratings, that's not the only information missing as I noted above, and there's little doubt that some items should probably be removed from the list. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re BP: I think there should be an article on MCU box office, which can cover many records established by smaller entries in the MCU. My thought was to either have this as a starting point, or have an overall MCU BO list with this as a lone split. Nergaal (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently a a bunch of Marvel-only records listed in the main article that I think should be moved to this list, but the other main contributor keeps removing them. I don't see why such records are ok to be covered there but not in a stand-alone list. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:06, 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, but renaming is advisable. bd2412 T 23:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of questionable diseases[edit]

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

This article does not work and cannot work. Despite being around for a long time (>3 years) with many edits, it remains a mess. It fails WP:OCAT. It lumps together a heterogeneous mix of conditions – from urban myths with zero claimed sufferers (until recently it included Fan death) to little believed delusional conditions (Morgellons) to popular ideas in alternative medicine (Vertebral subluxation) to culturally specific conditions (Heavy legs) to conditions with considerable recognition by orthodox medicine (Non-coeliac gluten sensitivity) – in a misleading manner. These are not similar. (And it omits vast numbers of equally valid candidates.) Listing Morgellons next to Non-coeliac gluten sensitivity helps no-one understand either. There is no solution to this because "questionable" is a hopelessly broad word. It is not encyclopaedic.

Alternative suggested names, like "contested", "fake" or "disputed diseases" will not solve these problems.

Imagine an article called "List of questionable politicians" that lumped together genocidal dictators with unpopular democrats with a politician guilty of a traffic offence. We would not allow such an article. It would clearly be hopeless. Our treatment of medical articles should be just as rigorous: WP:MEDRS is just as important as WP:BLP, and every or nearly every entry here fails WP:MEDRS.

WP:TNT is needed. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While clearly nonsense, deaths do appear to be attributed to fans (unless the warning from the Korean Consumer Protection Board is fake). And while "popular", the evidence for vertebral subluxations is just as nonexistent. If there are "vast numbers of equally valid candidates", then start adding them. If non-coeliac gluten sensitivity now has enough evidence to not accurately be described as "questionable", remove it. And this is a list, not a category, so it's not apparent how WP:OCAT would apply. --tronvillain (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not the vertebral subluxation has any evidence, or that non-coeliac gluten sensitivity is without controversy. My point is that it is misleading to lump them together under such a broad term. They are both, in some sense, "questionable". Both are undoubtedly questioned. But they are very different. The way in which they are questionable is very different. Putting them in the same list gives a wrong impression about both. No amount of fixing can solve this. It is a structural problem. I meant that WP:OCAT applies by analogy: we don't want overly general lists any more than overly general categories. By apologies for not explaining myself there. Bondegezou (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some seemingly reliable sources have articles discussing fake and questioned diseases, now and in the past. I hope some with medical training and access to medical journals behind paywall will provide refs which satisfy medres, since it applies to this article. This is an important and encyclopedic topic. [2], [3]. The assertion by the nominator that the article is incomplete is a reason to edit it, but not to delete it. The comparison to "Questionable politicians" is unconvincing and off-point. Edison (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those sources fail WP:MEDRS. There are undoubtedly dodgy diagnoses of various sorts. Wikipedia covers many of these very well. I'm all for Wikipedia discussing such topics. But not this way. We cannot lump apples, oranges and starfruits together. Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we CAN lump three fruits into a category "Fruits" just as we can have an article covering diseases which are popular but which may lack a scientific basis. Edison (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not "an article covering diseases which are popular but which may lack a scientific basis". It is a list of "questionable" diseases. The current list includes that which have a scientific basis; and also that which is not remotely popular. Because you cannot come up with an unambiguous and objective definition of "questionable". Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Better than a category in that it permits context and narrative. There is no question that fake diseases exist (morgellons, chronic Lyme, adrenal fatigue) and this article collects these quack magnets into a single place. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not a list of fake diseases, however. It is a list of questionable diseases. It seems to me ridiculous to bestow anything as positive as "questionable" on Morgellons, which is fake, a mass delusion, but this article says Morgellons is as believable as non-coeliac gluten sensitivity. That's misleading. We need to solve that. TNT is my suggestion.

We have articles on alternative medicine, quackery and Mass psychogenic illness. Is this article adding anything to those? Bondegezou (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its usually best to keep similar wingnuttery in one place. To respond to Bondegezou, while individually an item or two might be useful at alternative articles as an example, what tends to happen is that it gets over-expanded and then just becomes another vector for argument. Small concise lists are generally the best for material like this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per my answer to JzG, this is not a list of "wingnuttery". It is a list of "questionable" diseases, and as per GreenMeansGo, there is no unambiguous and objective definition of "questionable". If you want List of alternative medicine diagnoses or List of discredited diagnoses, that might work, but that's not this. Instead, we have an article that is far too nice to something like Morgellons by likening it to non-coeliac gluten intolerance. We should call wingnuttery what it is, not grace it with something as ambiguous as "questionable". Nor should we tar conditions with mainstream medical support but some element of faddishness about them with undue comparisons. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article could be expanded with justifications, but I see no reason that it has to be deleted. Natureium (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above 5 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename - Unless someone can offer a definition of what exactly makes a disease "questionable", this fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. I see no evidence that "questionable" is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. GMG ^talk 00:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stretch to suggest that medical diagnoses need to be recognized by members of the medical profession.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not what conditions are recognized, but whether the category "questionable conditions" is recognized in a way that has an objective meaning which can be used to make decisions about what does, and does not belong in this list, and do so without relying on original research. GMG ^talk 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (if kept) — The only way I can see a list such as this working is to rename; to remove the ambiguity around questionable (contested/disputed/unproven could work). Then separate the different types of "questionable" diagnoses into contextual subheadings. The sections could cover alternative medicine (e.g. adrenal fatigue), disproved conditions (e.g. morgellions), urban myths (e.g. fan death (if it were readded)), historically contested but gaining (e.g. non-celiac gluten sensitivity) etc... However, I'm not sure if doing so goes against the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Little pob (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. I recently added "Reward deficiency syndrome" to this list. I think it is a useful category. "Disputed" is a more neutral term than "questionable", but for the most part I think that is false both-sides-ism. We can make judgment calls, and justify them with reference to majority clinical opinion. For example, Chronic fatigue syndrome is a disputed diagnosis, and does not deserve to be on this page. Chronic Lyme disease is a questionable diagnosis. I do, however, support a motion to rename the page List of discredited diseases.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Yikes. I'd say to "controversial", but that would open up a much larger can of worms. "Discredited"? Wind turbine syndrome was a new one on me. Basie (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discredited is good. Its definition is more specific than "questionable". The point is that you need consensus from a certain group of accredited people (i.e. doctors) to define a medical diagnosis, and if those people discredit and reject the diagnosis it will show up on this list.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several possible titles, including substituting "diagnoses" for "diseases". The best title depends on the scope of the article. It might be considered legitimate to include real but rare diagnoses that are massively over-hyped by quacks (MTFHR mutation, for example). Worth a discussion when this debate is done. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I really like List of questionable diagnoses. Natureium (talk) 23:31, 3 July 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) 22:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction[edit]

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

I couldn't help but notice that a recently deleted article healing factor was redirected here. However, on closer inspection this article is well and truly listcruft. For the most part it is WP:OR that is referenced to individual comics, which is more of a thing that you'd do in a Wikia. Despite the title stating "in fiction", it mainly refers to Marvel/DC superheroes - there is not nearly a representative cross section of all characters with superpowers in fiction throughout history. There is already a similar if not even more detailed list of superpowers at TVTropes. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a very clear cut example of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- quite obviously, and irredeemably, original research. Reyk _YO! 09:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Kielbasa1 (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for OR and for being so vaguely defined that improvement isn't possible. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Searching for the name of the super powered being and then what their power is, gives some results. I'm working on adding references to reliable sources now. The edit notice that appears when the article is edited Do not list more than one example from a publishing company unless there are no other possible examples says "no more than 4 examples per power. No more than 2 examples if using more than one example from the same distributor." That should be removed. If they have their own article, then they should be listed, make the list article useful for navigation and a complete reference for anyone wanting to learn what powers are used by how many other notable characters. Dream Focus 17:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. There are far too many entries to fit on this list. Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability All the information could be sourced, I adding some already. But I doubt anyone is going to put in the effort to do it for the number of entries the list would need in order to be complete. Dream Focus 17:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Wikipedia Editor to the rescue! Faster than a speeding vandal, more powerful than a steward. Up in the mainspace. Is it a bot? Is it an AFD? No, it's Mega Wikipedia Editor! Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 1 July 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) 22:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Tanzania relations[edit]

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

Relations are the same as Bangladesh has with most countries: no ambassadors, no state visits, no bilateral agreements, and negligible economic ties. The Atlas of Economic Complexity shows 2015 bilateral exports from Bangladesh at $3M (0.01% of total), and from Tanzania at $25.7M (0.2% of total).[4][5]

The article cites a farrago of primary sources. There is an interview with a visiting deputy minister for constitutional and legal affairs, who encourages wide-ranging cooperation. There's no evidence that any materialized, that it was anything more than polite politico-speak. There's an article about an NGO that originated in Bangladesh and now works in a list of 11 countries, one of which is Tanzania. Finally there's a press release reprinted by two news agencies without analysis, on the occasion of a visit by two professors from Tanzania to Dhaka University. They reportedly agreed to sign a memorandum of understanding soon regarding matters of mutual interest, but there's no evidence that they ever did or, if they did, that anything concrete came of it.

No coverage in third party, reliable, secondary sources, so fails WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep $20million+ of trade a year appears notable to me, as do the other relations. Egaoblai (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- $25.7 million would be a princely sum to me personally, but to Tanzania, a country with a GDP of $55.7 billion, it's the loose change that slipped between the sofa cushions - 0.00046 of the economy. And the 2015 figure is the record trade. Next highest is $9.1m in 2013, with the average over ten years being $7m. In terms of encyclopedia-worthy bilateral relations, it's meaningless, which is probably why there are no in-depth secondary sources about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "WOW, BIG NUMBER, $20 million" is not at all a convincing keep argument, in light of the apparent lack of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. There are about 200 countries, and therte is not inherent notability for the nearly 20,000 plus articles resulting from their possible interactions taken 2 at a time. Edison (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per relative lack of substance as indicated by Worldbruce. (@ANKAN:, so that you are aware of this DR.) mahir256 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Worldbruce, great reasoning for deletion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in article do not establish notability, and my BEFORE does not find much else.Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 1 July 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Glasco[edit]

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

Fails notability guide at WP:NCOLLATH. No national awards, not inducted into hall of fame, etc. Ifnord (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 17:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep head coach at a Division I softball program. Also a professional coach at the highest softball level. Some GNG guidelines supercede WP:NCOLLATH, and those indicators should suffice.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to pass WP:GNG from the amount of coverage in the news.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references are the team's own website. The only newspaper reference is an article that mentions the subject but is about the coach he is replacing. I'm not seeing coverage about the article's subject from reliable and independent sources. Ifnord (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on the "news" link above, it looks to me like almost none of the sources are from the team's own website. ESPN Radio, The Vermillion, The Advocate, The Advertiser, KATC-ABC TV, Daily Iberian, KADN-FOX TV, DI Softball News. And that's in the first few pages... and most of the news sources have multiple entries... and not a single one of them is from University of Louisiana at Lafayette.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; a quick search shows plenty of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve by adding secondary sources. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:22, 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) 22:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero da Silva[edit]

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

Prod tag removed without comment. Subject fails notability guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC. Ifnord (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like part of an effort by a paid editor to create a number of promotional Cv-style articles. 2Joules (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotionally written, with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Note that his Google scholar profile is unusable as it is mostly filled with publications by people that are not him. The superficially best-looking source in the article, the Fox News one, also does not mention the subject, so is no help towards WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 2 July 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 deleted without prejudice (except for LP 658-2, which is withdrawn from the nomination). bd2412 T 23:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 3522[edit]

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

Mass unPRODing of mass User:Chermundy-created stubs that were mass-prodded a while back per WP:NASTRO. They still fails WP:NASTRO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is listing in the Gliese Catalogue of Nearby Stars considered to satisfy WP:NASTCRIT #2 (perhaps especially those with integer numbers <= 915, appearing in the original edition forward)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, then, for failing both NASTRO's general conditions, and the mass creation restriction. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NASTRO states that mass creations should be discussed at WT:ASTRO first. Ifnord (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These all seem to be cited only to large catalogues of stars and not to papers that discuss them specifically. Reyk _YO! 19:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My preferences:

Keep on LP 658-2 – this one is cited and I found some evidence of minor notability
Weak delete on LP 993-115 – this has cites, but doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG
Delete the remainder as low quality substubs of mediocre stars with no citations.

Praemonitus (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LP 658-2 has 0 zeros sources that discuss it specifically. Only listings in massive tables. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is mentioned several times in Liebert et al. (1979), Kapranidis & Liebert (1986), and Wickramasinghe et al. (1982), among others. That is sufficient for me to consider it notable, your opinion notwithstanding. Praemonitus (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much but trivial coverage in in Liebert 1979, but Kapranidis & Liebert do use it as a comparison star, and Wickramasinghe et al. does have a dedicated paragraph to it. I'll withdraw LP 658-2 from this nomination for sake of expediency. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. They all have significant coverage in the sources cited in SIMBAD, that satisfies GNG. Inclusion in the Gliese catalogue plainly satisfies criteria 2 of NASTRO as being a catalogue of high historical importance. All of these stars are exceptional in that they are very close to us, being less than thirty light years away. I think it is ridiculous to nominate nearly thirty articles for deletion in a single AfD. It seems to me that there is no possibility of complying with WP:BEFORE due to the large number of sources. I should point out that WP:REFUND is not creation, and that the guideline NASTRO cannot restrict the right to REFUND created by the policy WP:PROD. WP:DEPROD clearly states "any page which has been deleted as a result of a proposed deletion can be undeleted upon request". PROD also states "even after it has been deleted, anyone may have a PRODed article or file restored through a request for undeletion" and "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" which was certainly violated by the original PRODs. If the guideline purports to require discussion before the REFUND of a PROD, then the guideline is in violation of the policy and must be immediately modified to comply with the policy. Policies trump guidelines. You cannot use a guideline to override a policy. Ever. If editors continue to insist on advancing interpretations of the guideline NASTRO that blatantly violate the policy PROD, I shall have no option but to go down to WT:NASTRO and see to it that corrective surgery is performed on the guideline to make it comply with the policy by whatever means are necessary up to and including RfC. James500 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your input James500. I would recommend taking a look at WP:Civility. The WP:NASTRO policy was built up via thoughtful consensus, and I believe it should remain so. If you have concerns about the current policy, I suggest taking it to the policy's talk page first before attempting to make wholesale changes that will quickly be reverted. Praemonitus (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - NASTRO is a guideline, not a policy. There is a technical distinction between guidelines and policies. James500 (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:GNG is a guideline as well, so even if there was a magical distinction between policy/guideline/essays/whatever, it does not refute the core of the argument. These do not have substantial coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James: So ... you're not going to stop casting these !votes without making a bold "keep" recommendation then? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88: Are you going to stop trolling and violating WP:HOUND, or shall I just put Template:Retired on my user page? Your behaviour has completely exhausted my patience. If you plan to continue trolling and wikihounding, please let me know now, because I will simply leave. James500 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could simply edit in accordance to our guidelines and not ask to bulk restore things that don't have a chance of passing WP:NASTRO. Use a scalpel, not a chainsaw. Out of your 25-30 dePROD requests, it seems 2 will survive. Everyone, you included, would have saved a lot of time if you were more selective with your requests and stuck to things that do meet our guidelines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Responded to the above personal attack on my talk page, since that kind of comment is really inappropriate for AFD, and responding would be inappropriate as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- not really sure what the "canvassing warning" template is doing at the top of the page. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. It makes no sense, that's only something that should be added when there's canvassing going on. The only notices there is about this is a discussion at WT:ASTRO and the notices on the pages themselves. Everything is neutrally worded. And tomorrow it'll get picked up by WP:AALERTS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That notice is not neutrally worded. Words like "but upon inspect these sources do not consist of significant commentary, simply a listing in surveys" are anything but neutral. Your personal opinions about notability are not supposed to go in the notice. It is not desirable to put a notice in a thread that already contains criticism either, because the effect is suggestive juxtaposition. James500 (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. An accurate description of the sources is perfectly neutral. Conversely, simply saying "there are sources" while leaving out the problem that none of them provide significant coverage would not be neutral. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice This is a procedural matter, as the REFUND entries[6] (sorry for the clumsy diff) showed a poor understanding (or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation) of GNG, as, for example, significant coverage in 166 sources in the SIMBAD database looks highly questionable: did the requester check all 166 of those sources for significant sources? Given the rapid-fire pace, it seems fairly likely that none of the sources were checked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You know perfectly well that I means the sum total of coverage in the sources is significant. That is how GNG works. Giving the number is just a quick way of stopping trollish accusations of "you haven't looked at all". I felt it would be excessive to post a rationale that contained a detailed blow by blow breakdown of coverage. James500 (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except it's not. WP:GNG states "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail", with examples of "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM." Mere listings in surveys and databases constitutes trivial coverage. WP:NASTRO explains this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can the sum total of coverage be significant if all the sources say the same thing? If you haven't read any of the sources, you can't say that when all of them are combined there is significant coverage. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 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. I am interpreting the "oppose" comments as "Keep." This close is w/o prejudice to continuing merge discussions elsewhere. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uber protests and legal actions[edit]

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

This article is (virtually) identical to Uber#Legal_status_by_country. I propose merging any additional content into the main article for Uber and deleting this article. jamacfarlane (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. This article was created as a result of this RfC. jamacfarlane is certainly acting in good faith with this AfD and the problem outlined about Uber#Legal_status_by_country is definitely valid. But I believe the solution is to largely move that content out of that article and into this one. Note by making this change, we may run into more problems of the sort outlined at Talk:Uber#not_neutral_at_all. That is, the main Uber article would appear to be even more disproportionately and inappropriately favourable to Uber (see WP:NPOV) than it currently is, as all the legal concerns would be moved out of that article into this one. --Yamla (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise the article was created after discussion, but after three years it remains a duplicate of the section on legal status in the main article (Uber#Legal_status_by_country). There was consensus to summarise the section on legal issues for the main article, but this has not happened, hence my proposal to delete the Uber protests and legal actions page and retain the content in the main article for Uber. I would be be equally happy if the page was kept, but would want to delete the duplicate text from the main article, as having identical text (not even transcluded) in two places isn't desirable. I take @Yamla's point about stripping the criticism from the main article, so at least a summary of the criticism should be retained in the main article. jamacfarlane (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to delete this article and merge the contents back into the original, I wouldn't be sad. So, I'm changing my vote to a "weak oppose". --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose The content in Uber#Legal_status_by_country should be a condensed summary inside Uber#Criticism with a main article referencing to this one. The current Uber article is already too long, and could benefit from copy edit, while preserving the detailed international cases in this article. Shushugah (talk) 18:49, 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) 22:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free Melania[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(1) Not encyclopedic in nature; (2) has no encyclopedic value - long-term or otherwise; (3) is tabloid, speculative garbage about an incredibly fringe "movement" that no one really cares or knows about. Including Melania Trump. Can't believe this wasn't deleted with the first nom. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (*sigh*) per WP:GNG and the deletion discussion we had one month ago. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I created this article and I support User:Aoba47's idea of having an article Public image of Melania Trump. I assume Free Melania content would live there. I don't know if the current Free Melania content should be kept or not, but I'd support moving this article, or re-creating the public image article separately (whichever is easier or preferred by editors). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Most of the references in the article (5 out of 9) are about celebrities trying to get a little publicity by using the phrase. Most of what you find on Google is someone trying to make a buck - T-shirts and other paraphernalia for sale. There were a few mainstream articles in January 2017,[7] but this has not been an enduring meme and does not deserve an encyclopedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia article that gets close to BLP vio. Internet memes and hashtages unless a really big deal should not be in an encyclopedia. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Another Believer. Without judging the merits of the article, it passed AfD a month ago. I am opposed to quickly relisting it. Ifnord (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic trivia, plus potentially offensive BLPVIO allegations. Quoting the closer of the first AfD nomination: The result was keep. Sigh. — JFG ^talk 16:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence the "sigh" in my comment above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Together: 1.. 2.. 3..

— JFG ^talk 00:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Melanie Trump. I’m also disturbed by quick renoms. The article doesn’t deserve to stand alone; but the subject may deserve brief mention. It could be merged with a substantial trim of cites and text. As that article grows, the editors on that article can then determine how much of the original text (if any) of this article should remain. O3000 (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This argument reminds me of the reason Short-fingered vulgarian or Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands were deleted: they were reliably sourced and once popular memes, but were ultimately deemed unworthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Delete is the wise choice. — JFG ^talk 17:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not fussed about GNG. Some things don't belong in an encyclopedia and this is one of them, including it reduces the credibility of the project. Early renom seems appropriate reading opinions this time Lyndaship (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Disruptive nom. Passes GNG as notabilty trumps individual intrepretation of NOT. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- changed to merge per AB. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPvio meme belongs in some Memepedia. Edison (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is worryingly close to a BLP vio. I'm of the opinion that memes should prove themselves a lasting part of pop culture with relevance outside their meme status to be classified as encyclopedic (such as Pepe the Frog), and BLP-violating memes shouldn't be included at all regardless. For instance, there was a recent meme regarding Millie Bobby Brown conducting homophobic hate crimes which was essentially libel. Would that be included on the encyclopedia? No, of course not. In this case, even just bordering on libel should be deleted to save the reputation of Wikipedia and avoid potential legal trouble. Nanophosis (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Melania Trump. This AfD nomination seems to have been made in bad faith, given how recent the previous nomination was and given that just a few hours ago, I started a merge discussion. The material satisfies WP:N, but merging it may make sense because it's unclear that it can be expanded beyond a stub.- Mr X 🖋 22:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Look, I don’t know whether this belongs long- or short-term or not at all. Merging it would given the subject more attention in front of more editors, many of whom have spent far more time on related subjects. And a merge may ultimately result in deletion. For that matter, an AfD delete will not preclude addition to the Melanie Trump article anyhow. A merge may still occur. Which is one of the reasons (other than this is a quick renom) that the merge discussion that was started at that article should have been allowed to continue. Basically, no matter what the result of this AfD, there may still be, or not, related additions to the Melanie article. Classic waste of time. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the merge discussion currently, it looks like that will not happen. The merge discussion on the main page was helpful to bring eyes to the article already and it appears there is fairly strong opposition to the article and the merge. PackMecEng (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTGOSSIP, fails WP:N and may even be WP:POVFORK - pick one. It's gossip based on speculation.^{Atsme📞📧} 01:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS / WP:GNG. Trivial; Wikipedia is not "know-your-meme". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Not likely to become notable.--MONGO 08:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable nor encyclopedic. Also does not pass GNG. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as BLP violation and WP:NOTGOSSIP as others have said above. For that reason, I also strongly oppose a merge.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– Much for the same reasons as others have stated, it's basically a meme and belongs elsewhere. ToastButterToast (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Melania Trump give the above commentary. Makes me wonder though if a "public image" article can be made for Melania, on a similar level to the one for Sarah Palin. This kind of topic would seem more appropriate as a smaller part of a larger article like that rather than its own separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I really like the idea of Public image of Melania Trump. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could be an interesting option to put the parodies and public response toward Melania Trump. Just wanted to try and help with the discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most definitely. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there a Public image of Michelle Obama or a Public image of Laura Bush or anything similar for previous First Ladies? The answer, of course, is 'no'. I see no reason why Melania Trump should have such an article. Sarah Palin, really? Not only was she the first female Republican vice presidential candidate in a general election, she had her own reality show, a cable television program, and has continued to be a political speaker since 2008. She was a governor and has continued with her public "career" - so the article is somewhat merited. But, she was never First Lady, either -- which is a whole different ballgame, so no comparison. The current FLOTUS, other than the crap that media focuses on with her (her shoes, he clothes, a jacket she wore) is as low key as the others before her. Well, Michelle Obama wasn't exactly low-key, but if her public image doesn't merit an article with her being in the news so much over eight years, Melania Trump's public image doesn't, either. Unless, of course, you'd like to see Wikipedia become an internet version of a grocery store checkout aisle tabloid. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand your points. I just wanted to offer an alternative solution and it is nice to get feedback on it. I am uncertain about the public image articles in general to be fair; there are a few for the presidents (i.e. Obama, George W. Bush, etc.) I was uncertain if it would have worked in this context, and I agree with you that it is probably not the best solution. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think the content of this article belong anywhere since its fall under WP:NOT--Rusf10 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. I stand by my vote. This could be a search term so a redirect may be helpful, but I would not oppose a delete. Aoba47 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47 and Another Believer:What you are proposing is a WP:SPINOFF article. But the Melania Trump article is nowhere near large enough to start requiring spinoffs. What could be done is to create such a section in the Melania Trump article. The current "Fashion" section (a single sentence) could be expanded to something like the "Popularity and style" section at Laura Bush or the "Public image and style" section at Michelle Obama. Even if such a section is created, I would oppose making a redirect out of "Free Melania". --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Re "Melanie"/"Melania": No relation. 0;-D[reply]

Understandable. Again, I just suggested it as an alternative, but I agree with the comments against it. I only suggested a redirect as it could something that someone searches, but I understand the resistance to it. It is tough to do articles like this, and it is probably best to wait to see if it has any last impact/notability. If Another Believer wants to try at a public image page, then I would suggest that you have a lot of sources for it to make a strong case for it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes right down to it on wives of American presidents from the 20th century on, with some exceptions, the public image IS what history records. And unless life took them another direction later - i.e. Eleanor Roosevelt or Hillary - what we know about most of these wives is what has been carefully created and managed by the First Lady image handlers of the time. Even with Jackie Kennedy, history and her own accounts have told us, during the terrible days of her husband's funeral plans, she was in charge, managing the images she wanted us to see and remember. Melania just doesn't have much in the way of First Lady accomplishments thus far. In Melania's case, the image was probably carefully crafted and managed from the day she married a wealthy man. The public image of Melania right now is a case of what we already see. — Maile (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Trivial coverage doesn't meet bar for inclusion. – Lionel^(talk) 07:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP violation, failing WP:GNG and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Libertybison (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - by itself, this meme is not notable, but it is a likely search term. A simple search of Twitter finds 410 recent posts with #FreeMelania. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List of Internet phenomena. The article is appropriately sourced and appears to be in the same spirit as other political memes listed on WP.
Oppose Merge to the main Melania Trump article where it would raise NPOV concerns. Uncle Dick (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, supremely trivial. No redirect either. What are we, Ephemeral Memepedia? Bishonen | talk 20:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTGOSSIP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:57, 3 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mature Times[edit]

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

No credible claim of significance. (I know that isn't an AFD criterion, but it implies non-notability, which is an AFD criterion.) No evidence of notability as defined by independent coverage. Google search finds plenty of hits, but they are all either its own advertising or about its own coverage. Did not find any coverage by independent reliable sources such as critics. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; I'm finding nothing substantial about its currrent publisher, Highwood House Publishing. There is no information on the official website about its previous publishers except that they exist. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a free monthly publication designed for over 50s. I see it at my local public library. I guess it does not easily meet our notability criteria, but it has apparently got a circulation of 200,000, which is more than many local papers, and I think merits inclusion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A circulation of 140,000 (added to article with reference) makes it appear notable. Ifnord (talk) 16:15, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Action for Israel[edit]

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

Not finding any significant, independent coverage in reliable sources after several searches; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Most of this article is about the South African branch of what purports to be an international organisation. If it is such, why do we not have a proper substantive article on the Geneva-based international organisation? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Organization was more active in the late 20th century, I added some sources and a little material. I am not at all certain that it still exists, or that http://www.christianactionforisrael.org/ is the same outfit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note diligent searching produces no indication that this org. still exists. Political organizations have short half-lives. A non-notable website by this name does now exist. I have put this organization into the past tense. In its day it did get WP:SIGCOV, one national chapter was headed by a bluelinked person, and it is mentioned in a number of books. Moreover I have improved it with reliable sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:22, 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. Enigma^msg 14:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Young Man (film)[edit]

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

Fails subject notability guidelines comprehensively. ∯WBG^converse 06:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NF, no notability beyond existing. BOVINEBOY2008 13:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is completely silent on what the plot of this film is (the section sub-titled "Plot" says "This section is empty"). The only references are a few external links, one of which is the Internet Movie Database, and Wikipedia is not meant to be the Internet Movie Database. Vorbee (talk) 14:54, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desiderio Arce[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. All available coverage is primary, which does not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. searching turned up a single 1967 article in Deseret NEWS, with a sentence on him as a young singer turned missionary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Questions:
- Are sources relating to the Mormon church considered independent?
- Is there a notability guideline relevant to missionaries?
- Are there Spanish–language sources we are missing?

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 14:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PeerCast[edit]

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

Unreferenced, OR-heavy article about a service that apparently only existed for a year. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no news coverage as far as I can tell. Fails GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Nanophosis (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Defunct service with no sourcing. Marquardtika (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 05:38, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Byrne (academic)[edit]

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

The information is no longer accurate or relevant, and I don't think it's appropriate to have outdated information in an abandoned article. I would like to have it deleted on the basis that it's a BLP of a relatively unknown subject. I am open to verifying my identity in whatever way is deemed appropriate by the editors. I was never a public figure and am even less public now and am most definitely not active in the translation field. I would be very grateful for your help in expunging this outdated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scutterfly (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This autobiography shouldn't have been created in the first place and if you want it deleted I'm not going to oppose. On the other hand, your publication record is a fairly convincing pass of our notability guidelines for academics, so you should bear in mind that there's nothing stopping another editor from re-creating an article about you, or indeed saving and updating this one. – Joe (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BIODEL, if subject's identity can be confirmed. Otherwise, I second Joe Roe. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral he ~~easily~~ passes NPROF both with what looks to be a significant publication in his field, Technical translation: Usability strategies for translating technical documentation and as a ~~Fellow of the Institute of Scientific and Technical Communicators.~~ He is not an 'essentially private person' as he is actively marketing himself at [8]. It looks like he wanted an article enough to write an autobiography and it becoming "an abandoned article which I don't want to maintain" is not a reason for deletion. Jbh ^Talk 18:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC) last updated: His book is reasonably well cited in both articles and books, including Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. I think he passes NPROF at the same level as a 'two review book' in NBOOKS ie barely. I am disinclined to delete an article of a self-promoter who no longer feels an article they wrote serves their purposes but I won't be a jerk about it when notability is this thin. 14:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. I have changed the first sentence of the article to "Dr Jody Byrne is an Irish translation scholar and translator now working as a video producer and designer." References about his work as a video producer would be welcome. I am not sure whether the article should be moved to Jody Byrne (video producer) since he may be better known as an academic, but any move should be discussed n the article's talk page first. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not persuaded by arguments that Byrne passes WP:PROF, because a) he has an h-index of only 8, far short of what is needed to fulfill WP:PROF#C1, [9] and b) anyone can join the ISTC as a fellow for 108 British pounds [10]. He may have written one significant publication in the field, but that falls far short of fulfilling WP:PROF#C1, and I am not seeing any evidence of meeting any other notability criteria. Everymorning talk to me 21:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of reasonable subject request. Thincat (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:BIODEL ("relatively unknown, non-public figure, where the subject has requested deletion"). Guliolopez (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that Scutterfly has confirmed their identity as Jody Byrne via OTRS (VRTS ticket # 2018062710008961). Cordless Larry (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but also block user as WP:NOTHERE. Over the course of ten years, this user has done exactly two things. They've abused the project to write their autobiography when it suited their needs. And now they're abusing the time of volunteers to get it deleted when it no longer serves their purpose. Neither of these actions benefit the encyclopedia, so WP:NOTHERE. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it should have been deleted long ago as a promotional and borderline-notable autobiography doesn't obviate the additional justification for deleting it under WP:BIODEL. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BIODEL only applies if they confirm their identity. Editor should be blocked regardless for abuse per RoySmith. Enigma^msg 14:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user has confirmed their identity, Enigmaman; see my comment above. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I missed that. Delete and block is my view. Enigma^msg 16:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scutterfly has only ever edited this article plus a few minor edits to related ones. He's clearly unlikely to cause any further disruption. I can't see how blocking him would be anything other than punitive. – Joe (talk) 16:42, 3 July 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 moved back to Draft:Shimla Mirchi. There is consensus that this article should not exist as it is, but no particularly strong consensus that it must be deleted right away. Moving it to draft will provide an opportunity for improvements to be made if new developments allow it. If not, it will automatically be deleted as abandoned after six months without improvement. If someone wants to redirect the title elsewhere in the interim, please feel free. bd2412 T 22:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shimla Mirchi[edit]

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

Promotional article about an unreleased movie - according to the sources it has finished principal photography but is unlikely to ever be released. None of the sources has any in-depth coverage, all of them are brief notices and at least a couple are clearly rewritten press releases. bonadea contributions talk 13:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - the fact it hasn't been released does not bode well. As a result there's no means of establishing if it will really have any notability. It has notable actors attached to it, so there's that, but by all accounts that I've seen it's really vaporware. Reluctant delete without any prejudice of recreating if it's ever released. Canterbury Tail talk 20:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect BOVINEBOY2008 13:21, 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaphet Kotto (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hello. This passes neither WP:BAND nor WP:GNG. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two full-length releases on Ebullition meets WP:MUSIC; there's a lot of noise in the source record from the actor, but I'd be surprised if this band didn't get covered by indie punk zines of the day, like Heartattack and Maximum Rocknroll. Chubbles (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 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. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Forsaken (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable book. I have been unable to find any reviews online other than on individual blogs etc. The author does not appear to be particularly notable either. BubbleEngineer (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 11:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one WP:RS interview with the author about the series at Entertainment Weekly; not enough to demonstrate notability for her, the trilogy, or this specific book. --RL0919 (talk) 12:11, 3 July 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) 22:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Air Force Cadet units[edit]

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

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

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

This article serves only as an index/directory. It has no information that needs to be here that would not already available on the organisation's website. Not fit for purpose to have its own article or to be on here at all. Tytrox (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. The lists themselves are regularly outdated by changes within each organisation. Also added List of Australian Army Cadet Units as it follows the same line — IVORK _Discuss 02:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per user:IVORK. This is below the level of material that we should be investing in keeping up to date. bd2412 T 22:11, 3 July 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 16:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Yoon[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Article only uses a single source related to the subject. Seems a case of WP:COI. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 11:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 11:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very little evidence for the claims made in the article. Deb (talk) 12:43, 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. Sandstein 16:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Moriber[edit]

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

Very early stage career. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as IMHO TOOSOON, No objections to recreation in 3-4 years time, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:43, 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. Enigma^msg 14:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Horsfield[edit]

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

This article was created by an undeclared paid editor by copy pasting from Draft:Grant Horsfield. As per WP:PAID it should have been submitted for review. Requesting delete to allow the draft article to be reviewed and eventually moved to main space if accepted. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since there is no agreement on the keeping or deleting of paid editing, and since this is an AFD, not an MFD, lack of notability is a reason to delete. The case has not been made for notability. Not every entrepreneur is notable, even if every entrepreneur considers himself or herself notable. No independent coverage by third-party sources. Therefore:
Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no concensus for deleting or keeping but there is I believe consensus as per WP:PAID that the article should have been submitted for review and this is my aim in initiating this discussion. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think there is a case for notability. This guy is well known in China as the founder of the tourism B&B (Minsu - 民宿) phenomenon. There's tons of articles which back that up in Chinese. Not only that but he built a company that was purchased by WeWork this year. I think that makes him pretty notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzqq (talk • contribs) 06:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC) — Tzqq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. A thin CV. Doesn't meet WP:CORP, it is promotion based on unsuitable sources. The sources are unsuitable because they are not independent or third party sources, they are interviews. The first three are anyway, and the rest I consider WP:Reference bombing. Possibly redirect to Naked Group, but let's see if that gets deleted too. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Group nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naked Group. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think undeclared paid editing to be inherently promotional and abusive, and suitable for deletion via G11 and probably also G3, vandalism, as an attempt to subvert to the purposes of WP. (As I am unsure there is adequate consensus, I do not do such deletions as an admin, but I certainly do advocate for them ). So treating this as an AfD, there is no evidence for notability and clear promotionalism .The combination is sufficient for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dial911 (talk) 04:28, 3 July 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 16:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CertifiKID[edit]

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

Promotion, based on sources are non-independent and promotional. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this very carefully on New Page Review, source by source, did further searching, and have decided it is promotional content based on non-independent promotional sources, carefully placed advertorials and infomercial. Nice lady, nice company filling a niche, sure, but it has received independent critical commentary.

The references, do they attest wikipedia-notability, WP:CORP?:

Ref 1.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/she-turned-parenting-into-a-5m-daily-deals-business/2015/10/24/c2acd014-78e2-11e5-bc80-9091021aeb69_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.30130dcf5d04
No. Feature story based on an interview. Not independent.
Ref 2.
https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2016/08/11/how-jamie-ratner-built-a-profitable-family-website.html
No. Same as 1.
Ref 3.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/16-ways-to-save-money-on-kids-activities/2017/08/28/70217488-73bf-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.210f55aa3ff4
No. Mere mention, and the mention is solely to advertise.
Ref 4.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/capital-buzz-certifikid-expands-to-chicago-and-la/2013/02/10/9ef62704-7130-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html?utm_term=.a7dc638b8336
Yes maybe. Seems independent objective third party commentary.
Ref 5.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/value-added-this-mompreneur-runs-a-daily-deals-site-for-families/2012/05/04/gIQA93na6T_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.89f74f08a211
A business section feature, though the writing feels very very close to the subject, it doesn't feel very independent. More puff than critical commentary. Calling it "non-independent".
Ref 6.
Repeated reference,
same as 1. Same no.
Ref 7.
http://www.wbaltv.com/article/families-of-kids-with-special-needs-can-find-deals-online/7073027
No. Mere mention, and promotional.
Ref 8.
Repeated reference.
Sane as 3. Same no.
Ref 9.
http://www.wbaltv.com/article/this-video-of-a-police-dog-performing-cpr-is-the-best-thing-you-ll-see-today/21929609
No. Advertisement. Definitely not independent. Is not commentary.

Searching the web for other sources, not finding any, but finding heavy advertising, including infomercials such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DdwCV4okU8

This is a heavily advertising company, all sources appear non-independent. Fails WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 06:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. It sounds like it ought to be a notable company, but who is this Thomas Heath who is keeping it in the news. Deb (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone personally known is my guess. Re-reading Reference 4, which I considered the only one to cross the line to GNG meeting, it reads very puff, and how does the author know the contents of the confidential agreement? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on your investigative instincts. Deb (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 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. Sandstein 16:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loanscribe[edit]

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

Not of encyclopedic significance, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 06:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thinly disguised spam with Weasel words ("emotional stress"). It could be notable, but a complete re-write would be needed to save this this wreck. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altogen Labs CRO[edit]

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

Does not pass NCORP Natureium (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If delete: also delete AltoFect as redirect per WP:G8 — IVORK _Discuss 03:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did not start the article, but I did edit it substantially. Maybe it should be renamed to just Altogen Labs? If you look at the news sources for "Altogen Labs" it's a far more comprehensive list than for "Altogen Labs CRO". Granted, most of the sources on the current page are kind of crappy, I think a few of them warrant an article (GHP magazine is detailed). I started the Altogen Inc. page because apparently there are two Altogen's (the Inc. I think is more focused on chemicals and the CRO is more so preclinical work), but maybe Altogen Labs CRO should be merged with Altogen Inc.? The Altogen Inc. page has sources from Science and Nature (although they are not solely about Altogen) and combined with the current sources it might be enough to gain notability. I started AltoFect as well (inspiration gleaned from the lipofectamine page), but that probably isn't notable, so sorry about that. Natureium, I think the current Altogen Labs CRO page might find a spot in User:Natureium/todo, it seems to have sources of around the same quality as Aderis Pharmaceuticals, Biovista, and RespireRx, just to name a few, and I think it could be improved upon. I also am not really sure why Altogen Labs CRO should be deleted in context of other biotech companies (see Asuragen, Biotecnol, Diabetology Ltd, Esteve, etc.), and although comparison is not a reason to keep an article, I don't see why this should fail NCORP so easily. Maybe I'm too lenient and have a misunderstanding of NCORP, if so, my apologies. CarlBjornasson (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion from a throwaway PR account, clear UPE. Sourcing is churnalism, PR, primary and dead. Nothing good for WP:NCORP. The GHP magazine article mentioned above might be detailed but it is by them, it is not independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename - I don't think this is really different from Altogen Biosystems (where does the Inc. even come from?), and the content of both should be merged (and really condensed) into just Altogen Labs. I can make a merged Altogen Labs page (just not right now) and that might be cleaner than this mess. I haven't done much research on this yet, but just from preliminary searches, it seems to be well-known in the biomedical field and has enough coverage (I'm reading the "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" on GNG). I'll make the merged page either today or tomorrow, but regardless, Altogen Labs CRO and Altogen Biosystems (and Altogen Inc. for that matter) should not have their own pages. Where are the refs? (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with prejudice. Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft based on WP:SPIP sourcing. Likely UPE based on behavioural evidence; let's not encourage spammers by keeping such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails NCORP; obvious adverisement. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I made the merged page at Altogen Labs, which has far less puffery and unnecessary sections. See my vote above - I think redirects would suffice Where are the refs? (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This will continue to be a pain until an admin salts all three iterations of this toxic article. 2Joules (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Altogen Labs has been created while this is running, by User:Where are the refs?, and is now up for AfD by User:2Joules at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altogen Labs. Pinging User:Natureium, User:CarlBjornasson, User:Duffbeerforme, User:K.e.coffman, who have !voted here. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I made the Altogen Labs page as per my comment above - I thought that Altogen Labs CRO and Altogen Inc (or Biosystems, whatever) were better off merged in a shorter page titled Altogen Labs, and that the other pages should be redirects and not the other way around. This deletion discussion is about content on Altogen Labs CRO that is invariably promotional and excessive; I tried writing a version that was at least neutral with what I found to be the most reliable sources from both of the other articles, so if you had read what I wrote previously it would have made sense to have this discussion focused on Altogen Labs and not the other pages.Where are the refs? (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With respect to the above editor, the sources in the reflist remain very weak.Twitchymeatbag (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, please look at the reflist for the Altogen Labs page when I first created it (it is currently a redirect because of a speedy discussion I didn't get to see in time), I know the Altogen Labs CRO page is pretty weak in terms of sourcing.Where are the refs? (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's look at the refs on that page;

1. Already in the pretty weak Altogen Labs CRO page.

2. Already in the Altogen Labs CRO page.

3. Passing mention. Does not verify the claim made.

4. Passing mention of Altogen Biosystems. Does not verify the claim made of being a subsidiary.

5. Routine product announcememnt. Does not verify the claim made of being a subsidiary.

6. Already in the Altogen Labs CRO page.

Yep, reflist remains very weak. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. WP:NPOL - nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) HunterM267 ^talk 16:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salath Rasasack[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and also, WP:NOTNEWS HunterM267 ^talk 04:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a member of a national parliament, he is therefore automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing needs improvement, but serving in the national parliament is a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1. It's also hard to see how WP:NOTNEWS would apply here at all, since the article plainly asserts much more than just a single news story as his basis for notability. Also, GNG does not restrict us to English-language sources — if somebody can find Lao language sourcing, which is sure to exist for an actual member of the Laotian parliament, that still counts. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 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. Sandstein 16:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S. A. Hosseini[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable individual. [11] Looks like highest cited work is at 32, many being self cites. Page is entirely supported by primary sources. No sign of coverage by independent reliable sources. Created by SPA dedicated to promoting his work. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one review for one of his two books. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR and we have no other evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 2 July 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kornel von Feuchtersleben[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a free web host for writing about ones family. Non notable individual. Page is a mess of original research from personal discussions the writer had with his family. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability; a field grade officer who later became a minor government employee.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SOLDIER and GNG. There are other sites for this.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely original research and unreliable sources such as unpublished correspondence and interviews and vague family lore. Fails military notablity as a mere Major. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leidimar Bernardo Lopes[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly promotional, likely fake (Forbes reference yields 404 error, nothing on archive.org, no Google results (for the Forbes ref)). Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep he author is trying to improve the text and adapt it to the rules of Wikipedia, it is worth asking for help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisandroes tores (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete I see potential in recreation once we get more sources providing the subject pass WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what the article can be improved Selvam HYm •(Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what the article can be improved Douverton som •(Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Douverton som: Please motivate: Why do you cross-wiki spam the article to other languages? Even without translating it!--Aliwal2012 (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is another sockpuppet from User:Duccaa. Just watch the pages that he edits (e.g. [Instituto de Ensino Teologico Bíblico do Brasil]) to see that he acts exactly the same way. Joao Xavier (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The link to Forbes doesn't work. The two articles linked do not support claims about wealth. K175 (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable cross-wiki spam. I'll be cleaning up the other language articles soon. Hiàn (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does indeed seem to be a bogus entry. No Portuguese language article but cross-wiki spam, and supporting sock puppets to vote "Keep". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 1 July 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. Per Wp:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gopesh Sarath[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP. With only recent movies it seems WP:TOOSOON for his own BLP. Comatmebro (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 05:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON unfortunately as no prominent roles in a released film yet, also coi Atlantic306 (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this elf-written vanity page as WP:TOOSOON Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's only main contributor appears to be the subject (or at least an editor named after the subject) and does not appear to adequately establish current notability per WP:ENT. Aspening (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator has apparently endorsed deletion. Not sure if that's enough for a WP:G7 or not. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 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. Sandstein 16:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet (2007 film)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this movie, apart from a few databases and blogs and forum posts that just about supports the fact that it exists, but do not support it passing general notability. I've found no mention of it in any of my specialist sources (books, journals) on Shakespeare or on Shakespeare in film and popular culture. There are no sources cited in the only other Wikipedia article on it (on itwiki), and, tellingly, jpwiki has no article on it. Xover (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 13:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely non-notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If any of the links on this search are about the 2007 film, then it might be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: Thanks for looking into this! Unfortunately, the search seems to mostly find general hits for Romeo and Juliet, including a lot for Romeo + Juliet (which was quite popular in Japan). Unless someone who speaks (or at least reads) Japanese can do a more nuanced search, and preferably of the large mainstream publications that publish movie reviews (the equivalents of The New York Times and such), I don't hold out much hope of finding something useful here. Incidentally, the amount of attention to almost every detail in the field of Shakespeare—I can think of at least three books dedicated to Shakespeare on screen, and two more on international (non-English) Shakespeare, on major university presses, just off the top of my head—means that even a relatively obscure Japanese made-for-TV adaptation should have received coverage in English-language sources if it was at all notable. --Xover (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of recreational vehicles. Sandstein 16:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skoolies[edit]

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

I don't doubt for a second that this is a real phenomenon, but I fail to find any coverage of it in reliable sources. There are a few personal homepages/blogs/YouTube videos about individual skoolies, but the concept as such is not covered anywhere, that I can find. The article has been tagged as unsourced for three years, and most of it is personal reflection/probable original research. bonadea contributions talk 19:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 19:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Ajf773 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to a section in List of recreational vehicles, per discussion below. [My vote was "Keep"]. This is a thing, related to RVs and to tiny house movement. Tag for development. "Skoolies" might or might not be the common name for it, so an article move/retitle would be possible, perhaps to Bus conversion or School bus conversion, but renaming is not for AFD. Here is one news article, from "9news".

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

This should be developed to include a list of notable "skoolies", perhaps you too have seen a Youtube video and more coverage about some of the epic conversions and then grand tours about these, I saw one about a couple from Germany who went from Alaska to Mexico. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from Keep to Merge to List of recreational vehicles, but a new section is needed there, can be called "School buses" or "Skoolies". Merge not redirect because material needs to be added to there, there is no coverage of this topic there yet. --Doncram (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of recreational vehicles#Bus conversion - School (and normal) bus conversions in the UK has been a thing for years, The term seems to be primarily used in the US although there's a few sources of it being used here, Anyway redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing link to that list-article, but its "Bus conversion" section seems not the right target. That is about high-end buses within its "Class A motorhome" section, i.e. for professional rock stars and so on. I don't mind merger to that list-article, but it needs a new section lower down in the article, to be called "School bus conversions" or "Skoolies", and this is a merger then not merely a redirect. --Doncram (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry I'd missed that, I assumed the article was about bus conversions but as you note that section is about motorhomes so redirecting would be silly, Merge as per Docram. –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Kanoria[edit]

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

Nothing in the news, books or the web that sets him apart from thousands of other similar health care CEOs. 2Joules (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of other health care CEOs also regularly conduct 9 hour liver transplant operations (see Forbes link on page)? And own a bank in Austria, have a family foundation worth $10bn, and are trialling the use of robots for looking after old people? He's clearly not he same as "thousands of other similar health care CEOs" - whatever you think of whether he deserves an entry or not. User:213.122.163.234 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgletonc (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

note to administrators: Higgletonc is a vandal/troll, therefore his trolling should be ignored. 2Joules (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it vandalism or trolling to point out a difference of opinion with you 2Joules? One to which you answer not by disputing the facts but with an ad hominem attack? Need I remind you of WP:5P4? Or should I point to your own colourful history on wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2Joules ? Let's keep to the matter at hand, hey? ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgletonc (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Higgletonc colorful history? WTH are you blabbering about? I have zero assumption of good faith for people who make edits like this 2Joules (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So doing something stupid when you're young, which you regret, many years ago is beyond the pale but current accusations of sock puppetry and paid editing mean you're blameless? And still your focus is not on the matter at hand - it's the content that counts on wikipedia, not the contributor. I maintain Sanjeev Kanoria is worth of inclusion for the reasons outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgletonc (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Higgletonc You have made like 10 edits, and you found your way to AFD, which is not easy to find. And you were able to learn how to add links to discussion as well. All without a single constructive edit to mainspace. Bravo! Good trolling. 2Joules (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to AFD right at the top of Sanjeev Kanoria - not that tricky to find. Adding links to discussions - I just copied you! You know when you click edit, you can see stuff like that? And, as any one who is interested can see, I've made two constructive edits to mainspace in the last week. You've been busy since March I notice, quite a lot of your moves have been contentious. But that isn't why we're here, is it? Please can we just get back to the matter at hand and drop all this childish mud-slinging? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higgletonc (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References from reliable sources such as this one are sufficient to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Eastmain "On Wikipedia the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for someone to have written something about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.163.234 (talk) 08:20, 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. Sandstein 16:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation Ventures[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable venture capital fund. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are some non-SPIP references out there, but they are not in-depth as required to show notability. Also quite a few mentions with companies it invests in, but doesn't add up to WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 23:27, 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. While Thincat 's opinion must be discounted because it conflicts with our notability guidelines, Feanor0 does provide valid reasons to keep. Sandstein 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susmita Basu Majumdar[edit]

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

I hate to be that guy, because Dr Majumdar seems to be an interesting person, and it's a well-done short article... but I don't think the coverage of her personally is anywhere close to sufficient. The references are a bunch of incidental mentions, and by my searches no single research item or publication has generated the kind of coverage that might make the originator notable. - Please do prove me wrong, because I'd rather have any amount of articles about scientist poets than wrestling crap. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm really not sure how to address this. There is coverage of her in the Bengali press (e.g. see Kuntak Chattopadhyay (30 July 2017). "আদিগঙ্গা থেকে মিলল ঘড়া ভর্তি মোহর, তারপর..." Ananda Bazar Patrika.). There's references to her work by others (commentaries and criticisms found on scholar.google.com). She has published books and articles. Feanor0 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That newspaper item is about the coin trove and mentions her incidentally (as does ref #4 in the article). The only coverage of her music/poetry given in the article is similarly short mention, not an in-depth treatment. Can you show some of those? Admittedly I'm unlikely to find non-English ones myself. - That she has published books and articles does not matter in itself, sorry. The relevant guidelines are at WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ARTIST. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...sadly. Her work seems interesting and I would have loved to keep this article. Unfortunately there is simply not enough coverage. In the CV, I wasn't able to find something particularly notable to justify WP:ACADEMIC. I checked the citations on google scholar but didn't find much (though it could be due to the nature of the field, which doesn't attract that many citations). I didn't see any fellowships or any awards. If there is any significant coverage about her research, I would be willing to reconsider.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't understand folks who !vote to delete articles they think are worth keeping. The notability guidelines were written as suggestions about which articles might best be created, not as rules as to what ought to be deleted. If having an article improves Wikipedia then, as a matter of policy, it should be kept. This one is an improvement. No benefit comes from hiding it away so only administrators can look at it. Of course our readers should be allowed to read about interesting and remarkable people. Thincat (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. Actually, no. The notability guidelines are there to make sure that only topics with sufficient independent coverage are included - that being Wikipedia's function: to summarize existing in-depth coverage. Interesting or not, sympathetic or not, does not enter into it; we require a critical mass of existing material before an article can be created. As an unbiased editor in this project, you are especially asked to apply these thresholds on topics that appeal to you personally. The other way lies One Article Per Pokemon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, wholly entitled to your opinion but that is not what WP:Notability says. Thincat (talk) 14:46, 3 July 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 15:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flightexec[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be anything more than a tiny aircraft charter company, despite being almost 40 years old. There's not much likelihood of meeting WP:GNG, or WP:NCORP in particular. (the mentions are in air industry publications only). Would we keep an article about a truck company with 7 trucks, or a bus company with 7 buses? I very much doubt it. Sionk (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Notable in the region (Canada) and I found references in multiple languages. Obviously an airline company would be notable within the industry and trucking industry within trucking. I think it is historically important but not having references online due to being established in pre-internet period. Mia Watson (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy as A7. In any case, does not meet WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 2 July 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 15:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Guerfi[edit]

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

An associate football player plays for Bodens BK. Fails WP:NSOCCER CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:00, 3 July 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 15:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo (actor)[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Award categories, such as "Unsung Male Performer of the Year", are insignificant and / or scene related. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notablity,. fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 30 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 15:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Island Wide League[edit]

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

Non-notable football league, teams do not play in national league. No claims to notability under WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. WP:NSPORT doesn't seem to have anything on football leagues so I shall go with the first two unless someone can demonstrate otherwise. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Non-Notable amateur league. Fenix down (talk) 13:01, 3 July 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. Closing per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Wilcox (footballer)[edit]

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

Blahwheel (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep No reason presented for deletion by nominator; @Blahwheel:, please fill in a statement for why you want this deleted. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL, no reason given for deletion. Kosack (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, not least because no argument for deletion has been presented -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf, ChrisTheDude, and Kosack: See [12], seems nominator withdrew. Hhkohh (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And [13] Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:NFOOTBALL and no reason given for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:19, 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. Sandstein 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Stokely[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Mainstream roles are minor or uncredited.

The first AfD closed as "no consensus" in 2015; the arguments for keeping were not compelling. Two years on, it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately we can't keep based on looks #sadface, Sorry back on topic, I've found these 2 [14][15] but in terms of reliable sources that's pretty much it, Barely nothing reliable-source wise on Google and the article is IMHO very poor, Fails PORNBIO and most certainly fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the above comment illustrates why people continue to argue that Wikipedia continues to have major issues with adequate inclusion of women in creating the project. This bizarre over creating of exceisvely high number of articles on pornographic film actresses with nothing even approaching showing of adequate coverage is one of the worst our of control misuses of Wikipedia. The other is our excessive over abundance of articles on sports figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 3 July 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 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot Confidential[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film series. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. For AfDs on pages that are similar in scope, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babysitters (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamour Solos (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability Fails FILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM as no reviews in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 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 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerleaders (film)[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film series. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. For an AfD on a page similar in scope, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babysitters (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamour Solos (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails FILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM with no reviews in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 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.