< 15 March	17 March >

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Wesley Edmonds[edit]

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

Notability not established for this person. Article is sourced only by primary sources related to the fraternity and being one of ten original members of a fraternity is not something notability would be inherited from. Reywas92^Talk 23:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this is WP:BIO1E and there's no independent referencing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found two independent references and added them, and worked on the article to improve it. The subject is notable based on coverage in periodicals, books and magazines, as well as the subject's notable role as a founder of the fraternity - no small task considering the era, and placement of a monument at the subject's grave to memorialize and recognize Edmonds' role in founding the national fraternity, all of which add to the article's notability. Passes WP:Bio and meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Both this and this article you added merely lists his name with the other nine founders as a brief recognition of the fraternity's anniversary. By no means do these contribute to his individual notability as "significant coverage" in GNG. The third source you added doesn't have a link but I presume is the same, and is like the others also not independent of the fraternity itself. Nor do they discuss his particular contributions to the founding as separate from the gourp of ten together. Man, if we had articles for everyone with a monument at their grave... Reywas92^Talk 22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable because he's known only as one of the founders of a fraternity. Better off to merge the biographies of these individuals as part of the fraternity's article(s). Acnetj (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above - only noted as a founder of the faculty, and no independant references for him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:20, 19 March 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 at this time she does not meet the criteria for MUSICBIO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaedyn Kashmir[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:A7, does not meet WP:N requirements for singers/musicians. Only notable event was a one-time appearance on a reality show. SanAnMan (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaedyn Kashmir’s music contributions with Heart guitarist Roger Fisher latest album and his involvement with her music holds much weight. Also, her television appearance on the Great Christmas Light Fight was a full music performance on National Television. ABC actually gave her a performance credit on the show. Her name was also mentioned in the wiki article about The Great Christmas Light Fight. I didn’t add her name there but only linked it to the Kaedyn Kashmir page. What I do not see in the requirements for a singer songwriter is discography legend. She is listed on Discogs and Allmusic I will absolutely find some better citations if you don’t feel my writing and citations make her “wiki worthy” however, my links are clean and hold great weight. These are not “tabloid articles” but highly reliable sources. I hope we can agree on something here. Bebfire (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Bebfire[reply]

@Bebfire: read WP:MUSICBIO, no points of notability are met. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SanAnMan. I would like to continue to build this article and ask for some time to get my citations and information in order...post haste....for example, her last record and present one released 3/10 is Under producer Warren Huarts umbrella (Aerosmith, The Fray, Daniel Powder, Ace Frehley, James Blunt) the criteria is so close! She was also on the pop charts but I am still waiting for news articles and billboard issues to be sent to me from Seattle for citations. Honestly I dont think I was premature in moving this article, but clearly, according to the link you've displayed, it's on the edge. I truly felt I had solid citations and still maintain that her performance of an ORIGINAL Christmas song on National Television, a featured artist with credits on the show would have been sufficient. She has a good discography on Allmusic and Discogs, plus her collaboration with Roger Fisher which has not been cataloged. I hope I will be given some time to make the appropriate corrections. I'm feeling a little rusty as I have not worked on wiki for awhile. This will be my first ever article on a current young pop artist as all my articles have been about prominent well known artists from the 60's, 70's & 80's. happy editing Bebfire (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Bebfire[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NSINGER the sources are local and not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fulfills criteria

I continue to add more articles, TV shows and citations to this article. Please look it over and let me know if there is anything else I can do to save this brave little article about a teen who is so inspiring! I have noted the criteria and feel I have fulfilled many of the notability requirements

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:

       Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the 
       recording, including manufacturers' advertising.

Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Bebfire (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Bebfire[reply]

I don't know if it was intentional but you seem to have forgotten to reproduce from WP:NSINGER another list of category of sources to be ignored

"Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." and a lot of the sources fall into this category. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSINGER - references don't seem to feature him, and non notable music career. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDoes fulfill WP:NSINGER criteria. Please check new entries and new citations before considering to delete Bebfire (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)bebfire[reply]
Comment think its a bit too soon but she may become very notable if she has a single or album on any national chart such as Billboard,(itunes and amazon do not count) or has her music releases reviewed in reliable sources. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is WP:TOOSOON. The article is over-hyped; appearing on one episode of a reality TV show is not a claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:51, 24 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Brown[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:220.244.118.113 - Their rationale: "I have nominated this page for deletion on the basis that this person fails the notability requirements. He has only come to broad public attention due to the recent crisis at Trinity Grammar and his role in that crisis can be adequately dealt with on that page." I am not taking a position on this AfD myself. Iffy★Chat -- 23:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played senior VFL games, WP:NAFL. Keep out the news event, that belongs in the school article, not in a blp about a minor footballer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: meets WP:NAFL. Flickerd (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per WP:NAFL, but you have to include the latest news. Just keep it balanced. The-Pope (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NAFL Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, passes WP:NAFL Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Brown satisfies WP:NAFL criterion #2 (as he played in the Victorian Football League prior to 1990). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:47, 23 March 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 08:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunelms digital marketing strategy[edit]

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

We already have an article on the Dunelm Group. I doubt their digital marketing strategy is notable, as it seems pretty commonplace to me. Some of this article might be merged into the main article, if it were properly sourced (which it is not). Kleuske (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On condition we create Dunelm garbage disposal strategy. Szzuk (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:DUH and WP:DUH! We could also have paid editors create Dunelm stock clearance strategy, Dunelm carpark maintenance strategy, Dunelm pricing markup strategy and Dunelm store management strategy to further enhance the topic. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I can completely understand why you questioned the need for this page. When I initially published this page, I had only finalised my findings on the tactics of their social media strategy, which could only be commented upon based on observation of their social media platforms – this was the reason for the lack of sources. However I have since updated and published content more relevant to Dunelm’s digital marketing strategy, making this the priority and providing more granularity into the specifics of this. I ensured that the information was accurate as well as informative by using credible sources from thought leaders in the field. I also used smart insights from Dunelm’s Marketing managers such as Sajjad Bhojani, Head of Multi Channel Marketing and Developments (June 2017), found in the latest edition of Dr Dave Chaffey and Dr FIONA Ellis-Chadwick’s book, Digital Marketing: strategy, implementation and practice. Sajjad Bhojani explicitly stated Dunelms digital marketing strategy, highlighting methods they have used and tactical steps to implement them. Although I only explicitly quoted him once, the strategies highlighted in the page are only strategies are proved to have been used. Thank you for your careful vigilance of Wikipedia and your efforts to preserve the integrity of the information shared on this platform. In line with that desire to keep Wikipedia as a credible, I have taken the effort to support my page with facts from credible sources that can be easily verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnold419 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It simply doesn't belong here. Perhaps you need to look at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Specifically it is not a blog or a place for original research. I'm sure this treatise on Dunelm's marketing strategy has value, just not here. Shritwod (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Thank you for your comments Shritwod.

You mention that Wikipedia should not be used as a blog or to post original research. Fisrstly, the research used within this page is secondary, all the sources are clearly stated. Secondly, under the section titled 'Wikipedia is not a blog...' on Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, it alludes to the fact that Wikipedia should not be personal or used to promote ones brand – I have no affiliation with Dunelm.

This page is catered to those interested in strategic digital marketing in action. I explicitly illustrated how a national retailer goes from their overarching yearly strategic plan to the monthly tactical implementations. The content is not of personal opinion, or blog-like but is factual and based on thorough research which can be demonstrated in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnold419 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - No significant coverage in independent sources. Passing mentions, and investor coverage derived from the investors' own releases. An abbreviated version of the material here might be valuable on Dunelm's own page, but lacking any citations even from the marketing industry's now specialist press, this has clearly failed to establish notability even if, as the author argues, it might have utility. Mattyjohn (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete borders on WP:G11. Not a plausible search term that needs a redirect to Dunelm Group. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia at the 2018 Asian Games[edit]

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

No Malaysia did not participate in the games. They don't happen until September. A failure of ACTRIAL ending. Creator has 2 edits so far. Should have been stopped or developed in Draft. This is why we need WP:ACREQ. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:V. If/when Malaysia announce their delegation for the Games, then re-create at that point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:50, 17 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Varjojenkirja[edit]

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

Only references are primary or a link to a Google search, which does not appear to include any reliable sources.

References 1-3,4-12 are primary, 4 is a Google search that turns up little in the way of WP:RS, and 13 is a cryptic "Online interview of the administrators, 2008," which leads me to believe that that latter source could be WP:OR.

Based on this, this website does not satisfy WP:NWEB. TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete All the sources are primary, and I can't find anything that gives in depth coverage that isn't. For a site like this, it needs to be notable in someway to have an article, but it isn't. Also, why is this in english? Wouldn't it make more sense for the admins of the site to promote their article in their own language? What kind of cross international promotion is this? 💵Money emoji💵^Talk 19:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete References are not independant of the subject. Needs better RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:55, 20 March 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. Non policy based arguments by unestablished editors are traditionally given little weight and the consensus of established editors is clear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Layke[edit]

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

I did my best to clean the article up but once I removed the celebrity gossip cited to the Daily Mail, the award mill and an LA Times paid post I found all that remained was PR interview stuff. He obviously markets himself well and provides many interviews but there is nothing written about him. There was a claim in the original article that he is Fellow of the American College of Surgeons but it was not supported by the source. Based on that he does not meet General Notability Guidelines or WP:ANYBIO. Jbh ^Talk 22:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 22:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - he is the subject of a few articles... really needs more RS to establish wp:not. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you JBH for doing a great job in editing the article. Since you removed well sourced links I myself think that the notability was weekend. I added references from Daily Mail and magazines and tried my best to keep it neutral as suggested by you. I think after reading WP:GNG that he meets this criteria. Thanks Mia Watson (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Mia Watson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As I mentioned when I initially removed them, the Daily Mail is not an acceptable source for statements about living people. I have removed those sources both for that reason and because the articles are discussing the medical treatment of names third parties. Please read WP:BLP and WP:DAILYMAIL. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 11:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article for someone in an overly promotional field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dr. John Layke deserves credit for his many achievements. I was trying to add more references on him and I got accused by JBH of getting paid to do so. Maybe if you let us add relevant information about Dr. Layke and stop deleting it, it would not be considered weak at all. Thank you for listening --Glowhomeschool (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC) — Glowhomeschool (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This makes me really mad. I was trying to write an essay for my class. But when i came back to get more information it had all been deleted. thanks a lot your doing a great job.--Defterlamb63 (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)--Defterlamb63 (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC) — Defterlamb63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. I don't think the coverage in independent sources is significant enough to meet WP:BIO. Sources are non-independent, or are directory listings, or are non-substantial and/or niche publications. Peacock (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it would be a shame to delete this page. Dr. Layke has achieved many accomplishments. Because so many things were deleted, it is a little weak, however if we all work together, I am sure we can make this page great! CheersWikitalk123 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Wikitalk123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Rainford (quiz contestant)[edit]

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

Non notable quiz contestant. None of his previous quiz appearances are notable and are just a rehash of the info on the Eggheads page. Being an Egghead doesn't seem to give notability either. Dougal18 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Dougal18 (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. He answers questions on a gameshow. Refs don't talk about him, they talk about the show. Szzuk (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quiz show contestant. There are many Quiz shows. There are many contestants. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 20 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martinexo[edit]

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

Likely WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY of unremarkable DJ. No references in article, no results in a Google News search. Chetsford (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Feels like a promotion. Acnetj (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Martinexo does not satisfy WP:NMUSICBIO. A search for references resulted in a YouTube channel with 104 subscribers and not much else. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:51, 23 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkin' Crocus[edit]

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

They exist, however, not much else can be found in terms of WP:RS to satisfy WP:CORP or WP:CORPDEPTH. TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "they exist" above is both old and in passing. The only ref or external link on the page is the company's website, which give the info "JerkinCrocus.com is for sale". If we can't tell whether it really exists, or nobody has noticed that it no longer exists, can we say that it is notable? Certainly not with the refs (not) provided. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good name, their website is as dead as they are. Szzuk (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now defunct, hard to say if they are notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - [1] several releases of notable artists, but many of these are "live" recordings not issued by the artists record label, or reissues. An exception is Shrunken Heads (album) which appears to be original material. I suppose of some interest to discographers/musicologists, but as is the article is not helpful (its a list with zero context, discogs is much better at this), and there don't appear to be sources to improve it. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:45, 20 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Guesthouse[edit]

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

Not notable enough for its own article, few sources available, and I do not believe it to be notable enough for a merger with Yahoo either. TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some non-controversial internal tool is not notable.Acnetj (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable - no obvious RS for this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delet by the logic of this article, we need to make one about how admins on this site can delete articles. 💵Money emoji💵^Talk 12:37, 20 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Hoy[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. He is only mentioned in one of the references provided in the article. Searches turn up a few concert announcements and a single short article by a staff writer in the Pittsburgh City paper (Anonymous. "Hoy." Pittsburgh City Paper. 2003. HighBeam Research. (March 16, 2018). link. There is certainly nothing to support all of the claims made in the article which, created as the first edit of a SPA, looks suspiciously like UPE. Jbh ^Talk 20:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would have been stopped at AfC when WP:ACTRIAL was running. Legacypac (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

creator has commentsd at Talk:Greg_Hoy Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, as far as I can see. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His songs on youtube seem to have double digit views, his tech work doesn't look notable either. He's quite chatty on the websites but the refs don't mean anything without a claim to notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:57, 23 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CortiQ[edit]

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

Promotional and indulging through use of terms such as "uses state-of-the-art electrocorticographic (ECoG) technologies" and "long history of developing sophisticated yet easy to use", whilst "world’s only commercially available" just seems like typical unsubstantiated marketing. The subject matter that the program relates to may well justify an article (if it doesn't already have one), but I see no reason for why what is essentially an advert for a product should have its own article. Page views are negligable and you can't be sure if even those are from editors being directed from the multiple issue tags. Google search, whilst returning results, doesn't establish notability for the product. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply: I originally wrote this page. I wasn't paid for doing so in any way, and was motivated purely by my (now greatly reduced) desire to improve public understanding of new technologies for improved neurosurgery via Wikipedia. I work with scientists who use this system. As to its impact and relevance, a page I wrote in 2015 is now widely described in peer-reviewed publications, including the recent interesting and impactful "facephenes and rainbows" study from Schalk, Kanwisher and colleagues, which used cortiQ. (I wasn't involved in this study either; in an ideal Wiki-world, whether the two "i" adjectives I just used are fitting should be judged by experts in neurosurgical devices rather than Wikipedia policies.) I was planning on adding additional material about new applications for brain surgery and cognitive neuroscience, and other recent articles from different groups, as well as linking it to the BCI Society and BCI Meeting pages I tried to create a few months ago.

All of the statements presented in quotes above are correct, substantiable, and written by an unpaid scientist who has no marketing background. The peer-reviewed papers that I included were objective and appropriate. Before writing the article, I reviewed other examples of pages about products, including products from other companies that make real-time neuroimaging systems (also to confirm my true statement that it's the only commercially available system) and others such as NVidia graphics cards. I have reviewed Wikipedia policies relating to commercial contributions many times over several years, which change a lot, are inconsistently enforced, and go too far in the trade-off between nitpickery and content. The people with the most specialized knowledge, and those most active in scientific research, are also those who can potentially provide otherwise unavailable and ground-breaking content. We also have the least time for this.

I do not wish to contribute further to this page or discussion.

Brendan Allison, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzallison (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so you work for the company that developed this tool. We request that sort of stuff to be disclosed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The quotes are opinionated with a suggested bias angle to them. There is nothing really I can find to suggest some notability that would have made a cleanup worthwhile. The page views suggest noone is searching for this anyway. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Dr Allison above makes some valid points, which generally seem to check out. I also can't see what harm the article does if very few people read it, there are many articles that are basically never read, but we don't delete them for that reason. This is undoubtedly a very specialist product system, but there is no problem with that, there are very limited sources, but I am inclined to say that is fine for what it is. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is true. Sources are too poor. There is not a single review on the topic in pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge If the promotional tone was cleaned up I think the content could be merged with redirect to Cortical stimulation mapping. My rationale is based on PMID 24111197 which although is a primary source, would support the notion that CSM requires harware/software interface. CV9933 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Searching Proquest, only one article "Brain Diseases; Studies from Florida Hospital Add New Findings in the Area of Epilepsy (CortiQ-based Real-Time Functional Mapping for Epilepsy Surgery") Medical Devices & Surgical Technology Week; Atlanta [Atlanta]06 Mar 2016: 816 Searching Scopus (one of the main UNi journal databases for science, there is only two mentions (including the one above). Psyc info on OVID has no hits - So really, only two journal articles mentioning it - needs more substantial RS than this. Could be that it is new tech and it is TOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:25, 20 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Michael Finley[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and notability for creative professionals. The article cites no independent, third party reliable source. Searches return many passing mentions but nothing significant written about him. Jbh ^Talk 20:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you like me to get the information from? I know him personally and can attest to the accuracy of everything contained in the article, as backed up by the links on the page. - historic66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historic 66 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Historic66: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on what is appropriate to include in the encyclopedia. For articles the most important thing to be done is establish notability. For this we have out general notability guidelines which in short require significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. There are also various specific notability guidelines which give additional, usually easier to meet, criteria to establish notability. In this case those are the notability criteria for creative professionals. If an article subject meets our notability criteria an article can be kept but it is not required to be kept. If the subject does not meet those criteria than there may not be an article on that subject included in Wikipedia. We do not make any judgment about the subject's importance or contribution to society we only judge if there has been enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to allow us to write an informative and neutral article.If you wish to argue to keep the article you must state how the subject meets our notability criteria and how that information can be verified by coverage in independent, reliable sources. No other arguments will have any positive influence on the outcome of this deletion discussion.
So the short answer is — if it is not written in a reliable source it should not be in a Wikipedia article. Since you know the subject you should read Wikipedia's guidelines for editors with conflicts of interest. You may also want to check out this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Jbh ^Talk 21:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: Thank you very much for all those links. I hope my further edits are more in-line with standards. I guess I should ask my question a different way: I linked to third party, independent sources but can also attest to their accuracy, as I got it straight from the mouth of the subject/grew up with them. In a 100% non-snarky way, does that make me a subject expert? I should also mention I chose to do this of my own free will and not on his behalf, if that was a subject of concern. Historic 66 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only material published in reliable sources and in some very limited situations statements of the subject (ex. in an interview) can be used in an article. Information from non-published sources ie conversations, emails etc. may never be used. You should take a look at Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons if you have not yet. Jbh ^Talk 22:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both GNG and the actor specific guidelines. Wikipedia is not the place to publish private correspondence,

such as personal emails, letters etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for now - Since Finley at the moment doesn't meet the notability standards; I would lean toward deleting. If an article on him is warranted later and there are some reliable sources that would help, then I would have no problem with an article for Finley. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:38, 21 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Western Province (Sri Lanka) bus routes[edit]

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

We're not a travel guide, there's nothing notable about any of these routes, and most of it appears to be original research Ajf773 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar in nature to the first article:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noting two previous deletion discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombo Bus Routes. The article Colombo Bus Routes was moved to List of bus routes in Colombo) and then to Western Province (Sri Lanka) bus routes.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Lahore, which included all five articles listed above.

--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I strongly believe WP:NOTTRAVEL does not apply here. The article does cite Lonely Planet, but the link is dead, but here's all that's in Lonely Planet regarding bus routes: [2] WP:NOTTRAVEL is far too often used for transportation articles that have nothing to do with being a travel guide. That being said, that doesn't change the notability question. A BEFORE search for Colombo Bus Routes doesn't bring up all that many sources on the routes themselves, but do show Bus Transport in Colombo could be a notable article just using English-language sources if it does not already exist, and these routes a valid spinoff. However, the article does need a lot of improvement, and maybe WP:TNT is the best option. SportingFlyer talk 00:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Lists of bus routes do not belong in Wikipedia. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bangalore bus routes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bus Routes in Jiangmen City, China, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of C-TRAN (Washington) bus routes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Centrebus bus routes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MCTS Bus Routes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Express Coventry bus routes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Express Dundee bus routes, and others. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also articles that have been kept, for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Malta; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus routes in Newcastle, New South Wales; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of key MBTA bus routes; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of King County Metro bus routes; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Singapore and there's also Category:Lists of bus routes in the United States. There is definitely a place for these lists on Wikipedia - the question is, are the lists notable? SportingFlyer talk 05:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In further support of my delete recommendation, I would note that Western Province (Sri Lanka) bus routes has exactly two sources cited -- one of which is a broken link, and the other of which supports a sentence in the intro but has no bearing on the list that makes up most of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of bus routes fails GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per NOTBUSGUIDE - Info like this becomes outdated rather quickly and unfortunately all changes (and service numbers) aren't reported on individually and so as such these all fail GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:25, 21 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

86 (TV series)[edit]

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

Only reference in the article is a dead link. WP:BEFORE turned up basically nothing about this series. TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG - no RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs, I googled but it returned wp mirrors or other subjects. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 23 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rati Tsiteladze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted 3 times at AfD. A few new films since the last AfD, but I'm not sure any of the awards are credible or important; there's a lot of puffery and attempts at inheriting notability here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His recent film Prisoner of Society won the Best Documentary at the Oscar qualifying Tampere Film Festival [3] and is nominated for European Film Awards 2018. Credibility and importance of European Film Academy Award nomination is undeniable just as the Cannes Film Festival Cinéfondation Residence [4] as well as the Locarno Festival [5] and Eurimages awards [6] "The European Film Academy Award Nominee Prisoner of Society by Rati Tsiteladze".

Delete with extreme prejudice Again with uber-puffery - nominator has it right.PRehse (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be mainly short films - fails GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was not the director of Prisoner of Society, only the cinematographer. That is a position that rarely makes the person notable, so I do not see notability for him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John he is the director, producer, editor, and the cinematographer of the Prisoner of Society. Please have a look at the sources before making such comments/decisions. "EuropeanFilmAward Nominee Prisoner of Society by Rati Tsiteladze"., [7] [8]

I don't think he fails to meet the GNG. There are more than 100 reliable sources and there is significant coverage about him in different languages https://www.google.com/search?q=Rati+Tsiteladze Mariam Abashidze (talk) 12:32, 21 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Khoo[edit]

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

Promotional article on non-notable individual subject to a lot of undeclared COI editing. Lacking in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Written in an extremely unencyclopedic tone throughout. Related to another spam article, The Watch Fund. Citobun (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked through this article in detail. There is pretty much no claim that would put this above an A7. It reads like a puffed up personal interview. The intimidating list of references are personal press releases or interviews, broken links, and passing references none of which convey notability. No reason to keep this. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:30, 23 March 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 Already redirected. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LAFmax[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating another page on a "label":

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles contain good information, but are essentially definitions of the terms. It would be reasonable to note and explain these terms in A-weighting#Environmental_and_other_noise_measurements or Noise_dosimeter#Occupational_settings, but in searching the literature, I don't see enough material about these specific terms to warrant stand-alone articles. --Mark viking (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the content of these pages to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_level_meter#Measurements and added redirects. Thank you all for your valuable input.Phonical (talk) 08:57, 19 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imanigold[edit]

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

Article fails WP:MUSICBIO. All references are non-RS. A BEFORE check on Google News finds only one incidental mention. Chetsford (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New band. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A classic case of an article being created too soon. Fails WP:NMUSICBIO at this time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one single. Suggest recreating if they have a major hit or an album that is reviewed in Reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love Quest (video game)[edit]

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

As stated in the WP:PROD, this fails to meet WP:NGAMES. Of the eight sources, three provide only basic database information, three are unreliable, and one is a primary source. The "see also" review referred to by the contesting editor is from a personal web page. Martin IIIa (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not impressed by the sources in English. There might reasonably be others in Japanese. (Maybe a meta-topic for WT:VG or that direction--our approved Japanese sources are few.) Delete is reasonable. --Izno (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The jawp article on it indicates that it is written about in three books, at least - two about "nostalgic" NES and SNES games, and one about kusoge ("shit games"). I do not have access to those, unfortunately, nor the Famitsu review (it is not available through their website), so I can't tell how in-depth this coverage is.--Alexandra IDV^talk 11:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~Comment~~ The paper sources we will have to take in WP:GOODFAITH, if it isn't possible to review. Having looked around, it seems there isn't much, but the fact that there are (However poor), English sourcing for a Japanese exclusive game suggests notablity. The Japanese Wikipedia has a couple book references that may be worth chasing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which English sources are your alluding to as far as helping with notability? All I'm seeing is Gamefaqs (a big "no" on reliability there) and "SNESMusic" which just looks like a fansite. Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I actually looked up pages on google, and found some sourcing, and assumed it was fine. Then, I took a look, and it was literally all fan reviews. Purge. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of sources to even get a stub started. Open to recreation if, by some chance, we get someone who has access to the sources, is able to read and understand them, confirm its significant coverage and not passing mentions, and create a sourced article out of them. Not entirely sure how likely it is for all of that to happen, so delete for now... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources mentioned don't seem adequate. may be others out there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Pac-Attack. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Gang the Puzzle[edit]

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

I looked through archive.org, and coverage of this game is conspicuously less than the previously AfD'd Cosmo Gang the Video. Existing sources in the article consist of wikis and WP:Primary sources. Martin IIIa (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect to Pac-Attack is probably best here. I see multiple mentions in that context. Agreed that I'm not seeing anything of the sort to qualify it for WP:GNG. --Izno (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I found a few tiny reviews, but nothing substantial; a redirect to Pac-Attack seems apppropriate. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The available coverage is insufficient for its own article. (At this time at least,) Redirecting to Pac-Attack seems to be an appropriate course of action. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:57, 23 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand women's national volleyball team results (2010–19)[edit]

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

This was draftified by User:Boleyn, with the comment, "unref article not ready for mainspace; creator has not responded..." Has not been edited since. ~~Since draft isn't an indefinite holding space,~~ I've moved it back to main space and brought it to AfD to determine whether it should be kept or deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to draft for a reason, don't move it back to mainspace. Especially don't move somethign solely to nominate for deletion. After 6 months in draft space(which it hasn't been), it can be nominated for G13 CSD. If you don't want to wait the 6 months then you want to nominate it for MFD. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It never felt appropriate to me to move an article to draft space and then have it deleted at MFD. IMO, it was an article for the majority of its existence, it should be deleted at AfD. This isn't against any policy, as far as I know. Do correct me if I'm wrong. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MFD was only suggested if you don't want to wait the 6 months. Your deletion rational in nomination was draft space isn't an indefinite holding space, which is what G13 was created to deal with. If 6 months is the guideline that has been given for time in draft space before deletion, why do this now only 4 months after it was put into draft space, or 5 and some change since the last edit before the draftify? If you don't feel it belongs in mainspace, we shouldn't move it here. I can't say you broke an official policy with the nomination, but I would refer to WP:NOTCLEANUP - If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. With a draft, should be even more forgiving with that. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have mentioned that, as it wasn't really relevant; struck now. I am not arguing for the page to be deleted, though. To the contrary, I disagree with eventual deletion through G13 in draft space, which is why I moved it back to main space. I've brought it to AfD hoping to find a definite answer on whether it should be kept or deleted (as would probably eventually happen if nothing was done). --Paul_012 (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Paul 012, this is an unsourced draft - you've moved it to mainspace but do you know if any of the information is correct, have you verified it? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no policy reason saying that articles should be moved to draft just because they are unsourced. (And it was an article before you draftified it). We have already seen that this isn't going to be improved in draft space. Moving to draft is effectively deletion with a six-month delay. Why not have it deleted now, instead of waiting another pointless six months?
  Anyway, I've copied some references into the article, so if the lack of references were your only concern, it has now been resolved. This doesn't make the list less CRUFTy; perhaps there are others who still think it should be deleted. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice towards re-publishing once references are added. Hmlarson (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references in the article are all primary sources, and thus do nothing to establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page consists nearly entirely of tables of results, so of course the sources are primary. For that sort of data, primary sources are the best sources. The comment does beg the question of what sort of sources would be acceptable in an article like this to establish notability. If it just remains tables there is no point asking for anything more. However, if the page were to be expanded with some prose, there seems to be plenty of sources out there discussing the team's results. Here is a sample

Thai women's volleyball team set world scoring record, Bangkok Post
Women's volleyball team wins gold, Bangkok Post, "The Thai women's national volleyball team has won its 10th successive gold medal"
FIVEB article with some discussion of their 2009 results

SpinningSpark 17:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:ATHLETE inexplicably excludes volleyball, and I was having trouble finding notability guidelines for a country's national sport teams, but since almost every other country that has a national sport team that has played in an international contest is considered notable, I'm assuming the same here. This long list of results wouldn't work in the team's main article. I tagged it with refimprove to encourage references. Oddly, the Thailand women's national volleyball team article is completely unsourced, and I also tagged it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, so this page is now better sourced than its parent article! SpinningSpark 19:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it is notable (the last couple show it might be) and can be sourced properly. WP:NSEASONS is possibly relevant in part as well: it appears these games get good national coverage in Thailand, so they probably pass that as well. SportingFlyer talk 02:55, 17 March 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 Paladin's Quest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lennus II[edit]

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

Very straightforward: Article subject lacks coverage in notable/reliable sources. WP:PROD was contested by an editor with an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the term "significant commentary"; the article he refers to as "significant commentary" is a review of a compilation album which briefly mentions that one of the songs originates from Lennus II. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how to respond to that; literally the entire article is a retrospective on Lennus II: [9]
Additionally: I'm not sure that it's been established that there is are clear criteria for notability for video game articles. I may very well be wrong, but it seems to me that the guide linked to earlier explicitly states that it's not official WP policy. This isn't my subject area, but it seems to me that any game given a full cartridge release for a major video game console ought to be considered "notable." I certainly don't see any benefit to deleting an entry like this.
Finally, even a cursory search brings up plenty of other coverage from reputable sites and wikis: [10] [11] [12]
Korossyl (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TVTropes and TCRF are not reliable. We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The articles in RPGamer and HCG101 fit the bill but that isn't a great number. --Izno (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WP:NGAMES is not policy does not mean that video game-related articles do not need to meet notability requirements. Among other things, WP:GNG still applies. Also, Korossyl, you should have taken a more careful look at the article, because the RPGamer page you link here is not the one linked in the article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and I've been looking at WP:NOT too, but it seemed like a pretty good fit for Lennus II.

Re: being "more careful:" there is literally no other RPGamer page linked anywhere in the article other than the one I linked here. Korossyl (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point: we should now wrap up if there's consensus on the Izno's merge proposal, below.Korossyl (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs run 7 days unless it's WP:SNOWing. --Izno (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks -- this is my first AfD. Korossyl (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think after having his mistake pointed out, Korossyl would have bothered to check the article. Just for the record, here's the RPGfan page which is linked in the article: [13].--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a condescending comment. Please re-read the discussion. I have been talking about an RPGamer article, the sole entry in the Lennus II "external links" section. You also mentioned RPGamer by name in your March 17 comment. There has been no previous mention of RPGfan. Korossyl (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, in the end, what have you got: That Martin III mixed up RPGamer and RPGfan? (Honestly, I find your misuse of the word "literally" far more embarrassing.) If you'd checked the article as he suggested, his mistake would have been obvious, especially since he described the page's contents for you. Unless, that is, you were dragging out this silly exchange with the express intent of making Martin III look bad. Either way, you're not in much position to complain about condescension. Now drop it, both of you.--NukeofEarl (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping it as suggested, but I just wanted to own up that yeah, whatever Korossyl or I actually typed in this discussion, I was consistently thinking "RPGfan". I'm honestly a bit flabbergasted at myself, because I am well aware both that RPGfan and RPGamer are different sites and that there is constant risk of mixing the two of them up, so I don't know how I carried things on this long without realizing my mistake. Apologies to all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever else, the merge proposal has come out of this discussion, which is a great way to improve two articles, so I'm thankful to everyone involved. Korossyl (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to RPG and HCG, Gamasutra, Siliconera, IGN, and HCG again all have mentions. My inclination is a merge to Paladin's Quest. --Izno (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that even two sources should satisfy the requirements. That aside, thanks for the additional links! I could support a merge. The reason I created this article is because I went looking for info on the game and was surprised not to find any; I just want to the info to remain, in one form or another. Korossyl (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Paladin's Quest - not enough RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Paladin's Quest, since it's the original game... though I have to say that article looks like it's not immune to AfD itself.--NukeofEarl (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dig up some sourcing for Paladin's Quest when I get a moment. Given its release date, it must have a review in GamePro at the absolute least.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:17, 22 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe (Bangladeshi Band)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NBAND with few sources of any type in existance. Doesn't look like any of its albums ever charted. TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for recreation if better sources materialize. This is the only thing I can find in coverage, which is not sufficient for notability. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:37, 23 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros Dimgkiokas[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article concerns a footballer who appears to fail the sport-specific notability guideline because he hasn't played in a fully professional league or at [the] senior international level. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY. Can't find anything on the player that should he played in a professional league. NZFC^(talk) 04:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:11, 17 March 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) 17:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spectacularly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, the only citation is from transfermarket and that is per consensus not even a reliable source. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:22, 21 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Fite[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Few sources available, even fewer reliable. Most of the "championships" won were non-notable small-time events. TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT, no evidence of any notability. - Galatz ^Talk 16:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only five sources and three of them are Cage Match which should never be the primary source of this sort of article. Fails all notability tests I can think of. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egalitarian Mission, Africa[edit]

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

Insufficient reliable sources (found in WP:BEFORE or otherwise) to establish notability (specifically, the notability guidelines for companies and organizations). I would normally boldly redirect to the founder's article (Kayode Ajulo), however, that seems questionable as well. Founder article reads somewhat like a CV/timeline of his life, but that is a different story. TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Kayode Ajulo. Neither article seems to have reliable independent sources, but together there might be a chance of finding a couple. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: True, but I am half tempted to nominate Kayode Ajulo after this AfD concludes (if this one is delete that is), so I am not too sure if that would have much of a point. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:43, 23 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dietbitcoin[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable coin. The only common occurrences I can find of Diet Bitcoin are unrelated to the actual coin itself. Brand new, not notable and aside from a few primary sources, almost nothing to be found. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:PROMO. Not notable, no reliable sources at all that I can find. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Roberto Escobar is the former accountant of the Medellín Cartel and brother of the drug lord. I know NOTINHERITED and all that, but that's just got to mean something for notability. SpinningSpark 16:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

plenty of notable people have utterly non-notable business ventures that will never see the light of Wikipedia, nor should they by mere association... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that means nothing for notability. As you pointed out, notability isn't inherited. Reliable sources are needed regardless. Waggie (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indeed, another non-notable altcoin. All the RS talk about is Bitcoin, or other topics entirely. Waggie (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources available. Not notable. Retimuko (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing outside of their own personal website. Not notable. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even cryptocurrency websites cover this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another non-notable altcoin. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable – Craig Davison (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ty the Tasmanian Tiger Zoetrope[edit]

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

Insufficient reliable sources (found in WP:BEFORE or otherwise) to pass GNG. The only source that covers it in some depth is primary (blog post by the commissioning institute). TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian Centre for the Moving Image, where it is located. It's a neat piece of artwork, but I don't see the coverage to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As above - to Australian Centre for the Moving Image Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki:@Deathlibrarian: I am not sure if there is enough of a mention in Australian Centre for the Moving Image though. The sole mention is a WikiLink to Ty the Tasmanian Tiger Zoetrope and none of the others mentioned in the section have articles (or are redirects). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:23, 22 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strathmore School System[edit]

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

Elementary schools must have to pass WP:GNG which it fails. Störm (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The latest RfC said there was no consensus to change the compromise by which we always kept high schools and merged elementary schools unless there was some strong reason otherwise. We would do well to follow it. I'll note that this has nothing to do with the GNG oranyconcept of notability - -it's a purely practical measure. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak redirect to Larkana which is the city that has the schools. The single source on that article has a list of 86 schools in Larkana. [14] so it has no independent notability. No news articles, just Facebook pages. Current one can also be confused with Strathmore School in Kenya. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:11, 22 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15 ans et demi[edit]

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

Article makes no claim for notability/significance and consists of one sentence saying that it was a 2008 French comedy film. There are enough sources to confirm that the film exists, but it does not appear to have any notable reviews or pass WP:GNG/WP:NFILM. TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Title issues complicate the searching here, and the French and German Wikipedia articles have more detail but are sketchy on reviews. But it stars the leading French actor Daniel Auteuil, and some coverage does show up in repeated searching. The film had its American premiere at the Seattle International Film Festival under the horrendous alternative title Daddy Cool, and here are a couple of brief reviews of the picture from local Seattle papers [15][16] (the second one begins: "There are some things a man never wants to see. His child posing in Hustler. His home in flames. And Daniel Auteuil, one of the best French actors of all time, wearing a wifebeater and headband and throwing signs at his homies.") Here is a slightly longer (and more positive) writeup from the French website Abus de Ciné [17]. The IMDb page (also using the regrettable Daddy Cool title) [18] has a few other foreign-language reviews. Not the strongest case of notability, but as a film theatrically released in France, I'd call it a marginal keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found in Premiere ([19]), Le Monde ([20]), Le Figaro ([21]) make it pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews in multiple national press outlets. MHAN2016 (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep criterion #1. I withdraw the nomination. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:55, 23 March 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 Outcome. Nominated by globally banned editor so discussion tainted. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decred[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is too soon at best, with the article supported largely by original research and unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from my notability survey and there is a ongoing discussion on the overall topic area. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping editors from previous AfD on this article: @Staszek Lem: - @P199: - @Preaky: - @157.235.66.80:. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per ((Db-g4)). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~@P199: I had it checked and it is not eligible for CSD G4. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ANI, diff, copied below:

The version deleted at AfD was a one liner. There are other previous versions, but they were deleted because they were copyvios. Assumming the current text isn't, it doesn't look like G4 applies. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep - Seems like there's plenty of significant, third-party coverage by reliable sources to satisfy GNG. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. I couldn't find any coverage in reputable media. The article cites a few questionable sources: article in a local news outlet Chicago Tribune, article in Forbes, which is essentially a blog, and mentions Decred in passing, and a few questionable cryptocoin sites like CryptoCoinNews, AltcoinNews and BraveNewCoin. This does not seem to qualify for in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Tribune is about as local as the New York Times. It's the leading newspaper of the third largest city in the United States. And the article in the Tribune is a full feature article. Forbes is also a reliable source. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, suppose we count that article in CT as an article in a reputable source. Forbes is a kind of a blog, and the cited article mentions Decred in passing, so it doesn't count anyway. One article is not in-depth coverage. Retimuko (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect a minimum three, preferably a half dozen articles of that standard before this is even close to passing the threshold of a valid article at this point in time, taking into account the current policies and consensus on the inclusion of similar articles on similar subjects. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the headline of the Trib story is "Chicago developers launch Bitcoin alternative", I'd say yeah, it's a local story. --Calton | Talk 07:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Retimuko. Pretty much every adjective used by Gigglesnorthotel doesn't fit. --Calton | Talk 07:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Trib is the only reliable source, and it's very crystal ballish. The best I can say is "not yet." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has received some coverage but I do not think it quite meets the GNG. It can be recreated if/when it does. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources already cited indicate notability, plenty more coverage is available - check out the news link. Cannot be deleted on the basis of GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 10:52, 23 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlackCoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is too soon at best, with the article supported largely by original research and unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from my notability survey and there is a ongoing discussion on the overall topic area. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping editors from previous AfD on this article: @Citation Needed: - @83.81.237.164: - @60.242.81.207: - @89.212.101.88: - @Breadblade: - @76.101.95.200:. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wouldn't meet any SNG about cryptocurrencies. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is based on primary and unreliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarynews sources fail GNG. Widefox; talk 02:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, fails GNG. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:19, 22 March 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 Outcome. Nominated by a globally banned user so this discussion is tainted. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feathercoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is too soon at best, with the article supported largely by original research and unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from my notability survey and there is a ongoing discussion on the overall topic area.) Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping editors from both previous AfD's on this article: @Citation Needed: - @Ivanvector: - @Mark Arsten: - @Dialectric: - @Sdegan: - @Rezonansowy: - @Cirt: - @Stuartyeates: - @Walter Görlitz: - @91.158.105.69: - @Travwil: - @WSF: - @Sradics: - @Josh3580: - @Kokot.kokotisko: - @StipulatedFred: - @Candleabracadabra: - @Cliff12345: - @Whpq: - @Mark viking:. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at the moment: it seems you're in the process of writing a new SNG for cryptocoins (and I applaud the effort) but at the moment I'm just going by GNG and CORP and such. This altcoin is five years old now, and there are more in-depth writeups in sources like Lifewire, Coindesk, Coindesk again, Bitcoin Magazine, and The Merkle. I can't really comment on the reliability of these sources but they do show in-depth coverage over an extended period of time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I was initially assuming delete based on the article's source, but a quick search impressed me, particularly checking news. I found the following reliable sources that are independent of the subject in the article: [22] and found by searching: [23]. These are OK, but questionable (not sure if the source meets RS, but probably could), from the article: [24] found by searching: [25] [26] This one, in the article, is the most sketchy but seems OK: [27] and I didn't bother to check these sort via searches. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've trimmed much of the primary source verbage from the article. Some of the SPAs may need to be warned about COI. Needs to be linked to es.wiki. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I linked it on Wikidata, for editors convenience the es.wikipedia article can be reached here. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changed vote after sleeping on it, reading the discussion at Talk:Cryptocurrency#Notability_of_Cryptocurrencies:_Informal_RFC linked above and looking closely at the sources. There are lots of comments on the web which show evidence of having read the primary sources, but not of having critically examined them. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 18 March 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 Outcome. Discussion tainted from being made by a sock of a globally banned user. Lets not give them the satisfaction. No objection to early renomination by an editor in good standing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MazaCoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable article about a new cryptocurrency. This is too soon at best, with the article supported largely by original research and unreliable sources. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability guidelines and most certainly does not have significant in-depth coverage. I have not found much other than promotional hype in my pre-nomination search for sources, but I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. (Note, this is from my notability survey and there is a ongoing discussion on the overall topic area. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:2 2, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping editors from both previous AfD's on this article: @Cirt: - @Agyle: - @Surfer43: - @Citation Needed: - @Jonpatterns: - @Lewis Hulbert:. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails CORP and the GNG. Half of the above editors have been inactive for a long while, so I don't expect much input from them. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a number of notable sources. Jonpatterns (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable sources are not reliable sources or in-depth. Significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources is what would be needed, and there isn't the sourcing available. But as I said, I am happy to discuss any specific sources that may be relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent and Verge are two independent sources showing notability. https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5469510/native-americans-assert-their-independence-through-cryptocurrency-mazacoin https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/mazacoin-native-american-tribe-adopts-bitcoin-derivative-as-national-currency-9165314.html There is also a more recent Mashable source https://mashable.com/2017/10/09/lakota-in-america-short-film-square/#hMGh0N1DAmq3 Jonpatterns (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Oglala Lakota side story is an interesting marketing angle (and promotional), but not really relevant. No independent sources, no notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be your opinion that 'the Oglala Lakota side story' is only promotional, but doesn't have a bearing on the article unless you have a source. The Independent and Verge are two independent sources showing notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the sources, but I'm still not convinced that this has any real connection to the Oglala Lakota tribe. Note that I am allowed to have doubts like this in assessing promotionalism in the article, and ultimately it is up to the article writers to provide sources that establish the facts (e.g. on any official connection). Nothing in the sources convinces me that there is an official connection, in fact they've led me to the conclusion that there aren't any, that MazaCoin is a scam that is using the name of the Oglala Lakota without their permission to market a ripoff venture.

Strong words, I know. But consider the following:

The Wall Street Journal published that Mazacoin and the tribe were officially connected (about March 2014), but later retracted this. 4 or 5 generally reliable sources published "facts" about the connection, but all seemed to rely on the WSJ account. Verge also seemed to rely on the WSJ and a Forbes blogger. The promoter also made some very carefully crafted statements for these articles which seem to imply there is an official connection, but don't quite say it.
A Newsweek article from August 2014 is better than most of the above. Note that Newsweek has gone thru many iterations since 1999, so I'm not sure it's a reliable source. It says that there is not an official connection between the tribe and Mazacoin, that "the Mazacoin world is valued only around $63,000—a speck of dust in the crypto-currency galaxy" but that it might be an interesting platform for paying for gambling, porn, and perhaps for tax reasons.
Nothing that I could find on the official website https://www.mazacoin.org/ says anything about an official connection. Rather there are a few vague words "MAZA is a Cryptocurrency Network for All Sovereign Tribes" that essentially say nothing.
The official community webpage http://mazatalk.com/ in the external link section is a dead link.
An archived page from that site quotes a user quoting a reddit editor quoting a tribal official saying nothing in particular about Mazacoin (essentialy "We'll see what develops, maybe")
Then there is the "Memorandum of agreement" between the tribe and the Mazacoin promoter (on Googledocs only). Undated but probably from late 2013. The tribe promises nothing, but says that the promoter can give them further details and that the MOA expires after 1 year. Apparently it has expired as the MOA is now in the trash.

Given the above, I conclude that Mazacoin is a scam that is at least indirectly making money off of some of the poorest people in the US. Wikipedia should have no place in even indirectly promoting this garbage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I wonder if the best way to proceed is to delete the article, or add the additional information? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO just delete it then take a shower. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've removed all the text that suggests that this is in any way an official currency of the Oglala Lakota Tribe, and all the sources who missed the boat on this and said that it was an official currency - they are obviously not reliable sources in this context. That only leaves 2 sentences plus 1 section. The section should be deleted since it is now unsourced. But let's just delete the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject received some coverage in RS at the time of its creation but the coverage, like the coin, has flatlined, and I do not think the initial coverage or the sporadic mentions thereafter passes SIGCOV. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrodvarsson: The coin's value had flatlined until the start of this year when it rose quickly. It as fallen again but is still higher than it was. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/mazacoin/ Jonpatterns (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~The supposed value of these things bounces up and down like a yo-yo, even with Bitcoin it does this. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By flatline I did not just mean the fiat value of the coin, but dev activity and general use. On the topic of the value, it like the majority of coins rose in January, but is less than $0.002, down from its 2014 peak of ~$0.08, a loss of 97.5%—and as you say this is a recovery from most of the previous 4 years when it had a trading volume of less than $20 on some days! Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Disposal of human corpses#Criminal disposal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dump job[edit]

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

Police terminology. This remains a WP:DICDEF, despite a 2011 talk page discussion devoted to making it something more. Sandstein 14:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. A google search is muddled by advertisements for dump truck jobs among other things, but I'm not finding anything that goes beyond a dictionary definition. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disposal of human corpses#Criminal disposal. The term is used and is a plausible search term. I agree that at present it fails WP:DICDEF. The disposal article is much more developed (though citations there could be improved).Icewhiz (talk) 22:02, 19 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M. K. Hume[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not finding any in depth discussion in reliable sources. Even the reviews are sourced to her website. I found this, but it's trivial. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, this is embarrassing. I did check the talk page for an old AFD but didn't look at deletions. I brought it to AfD in 2011 and didn't notice when it was recreated in 2012, no better than it was when it was when it was deleted. Of the two links I found then, only one is still working.[28] Doug Weller talk 18:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No awards or notable publications. Fails WP:AUTHOR . LibStar (talk) 19:10, 16 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SE8 Group[edit]

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

Non-notable company SmartSE (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The account that created it is obviously promotional, and I'm having trouble finding sources for this. If it's only claim to fame is being run by a famous celebrity, then it should be deleted. The account that created it should also be banned for obviously being protional 💵💵💵💵 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 1 ref is crowdsourced. Other similar possible refs are also crowdsourced. Can't find more. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePossibly worth noting the company on the two actors' own pages, but no signs of being notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Mattyjohn (talk) 23:04, 22 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Murugadoss[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extremely minor pageant, no notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 19 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Csutoras[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is verging on blatant spam, but more importantly, the subject has still not attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, trivial, promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's a "social media expert", new article with paid for tag and ref bombing. Szzuk (talk) 16:41, 23 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh (band)[edit]

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

Band with no independent relaible sources. The refs are very niche/ blog/ press release. No other qualifications for WP:BAND Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kerrang! is an independent reliable source. It's the best selling UK music weekly magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yealdgate (talk • contribs) 10:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fits as a stub. Lewishhh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Kerrang article plus an Allmusic bio are a good start, but I can't feeling it's WP:TOOSOON here for an article. --Michig (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added Allmusic and ABC News citationsYealdgate (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The additional coverage identified looks sufficient now for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 13:40, 16 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ando Insurance[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No sources in article. A search on Google News returns six hits, of which the RS ones are fleeting mentions that don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. No results in a search on JSTOR or Google Books. Chetsford (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced WP:SPA article. Nothing in the article indicates more than a company going about its business; no other evidence of encyclopaedic notability found. AllyD (talk) 12:07, 23 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Kumar Ambar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abhishek Kumar Amber

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

Non-notable poet, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources, composed as they are of blogs and tabloids, do not meet WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. An article under the title Abhishek Kumar Amber, was deleted through an AFD discussion. It has now been recreated under this name. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable teenaged poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable teenaged poet. Szzuk (talk) 16:50, 23 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Gomonova[edit]

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

Subject has not attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources SmartSE (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had a look at the sources and did a search. Nothing that amounts to independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 14:55, 18 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Mahajan[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no sign of passing WP:CREATIVE. PROD contested by the author the following reason: I have added news items that have covered Nitin Mahajan and the IMDB page and youtube link for the trailer of Nitin Mahajan's films. The author also seems to have a close connection to the subject per their username. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article on the film created by the same user. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jean Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several references to the film Blue Jean Blues and Nitin Mahajan have been provided. No connection to the subject whatsoever . - Popcorncandyfilms (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Popcorncandyfilms (talk · contribs) was the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD and has been blocked indefinatly as a spam/advertising-only account.[reply]
@Popcorncandyfilms: I have moved it, but for future reference, !votes and the like always go at the bottom of the section, not above the nomination. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I fail to retrieve anything other than a single Tribune piece about the film-director and the film, which is probably paid-spam.It's too soon for the director to be encyclopedic-ally notable and the promotional-efforts of the article-creator may be better-directed elsewhere!~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's too soon. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:40, 17 March 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 10:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Kumar Yadav[edit]

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

A local leader of a political party that does not meet WP:NPOL. Though his name is mentioned in several newspapers, they are all passing mentions and reflect more on the party than the subject himself. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Fails WP:POLITICIAN Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being president of a political organization (minor political party? youth organization? I can't tell) is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass. But as written, this is a two-sentence substub which just states that he exists, and reference bombs the fact of his existence to nine glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and one source that is technically about him but is posted to a user-generated public relations blog on WordPress (and thus is not a notability-assisting source). This is not how you get a person like this over WP:GNG: he has to be the subject of media coverage, not just have his name mentioned in media coverage of other things, and that sourcing has to enable us to write more about him than just "he exists, the end". Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 21 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civil courage[edit]

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

WP:DICTIONARY this article appears to be a definition of a word, which has not established notability beyond the fact that it has a defined meaning. Other issues with article text include primary sourcing and using Wikipedia as a source (De. Wiki) Edaham (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Way beyond WP:DICTDEF at this point already. Re sourcing, it is lazily/unsuitable done at this point, but if you look at the German article [29], of which this seems to be a straight port, you will see that there's actually a lot of sources - none inline, as they sadly insist on doing on deWiki; but this is without doubt a notable concept. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an over-write of a redirect and this content could very easily have been integrated into Courage. The standards of en.Wikipedia differ from its German counterpart and I am not in a position to judge the merits of the german version. However, here it has no independent sourcing to establish notability and fails WP:GNG. It reads like WP:OR and is an unneeded fork. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Nominating reviewer) - I did the cursory searches before nominating. While there may be some info in DeWiki (I'm not German and cannot speak the language), no obvious results in my google search for English lang. secondary sourcing seriously validated this as a notable concept beyond a dictionary def. Also as an English Wikipedia editor and reviewer, I'm not primarily concerned with what other wikis say about it per WP:USERGEN. I'm also not convinced that its widespread use as a concept in German, even if sufficiently sourced in German, makes it suitable for an EnWiki article, unless perhaps it is frequently used in translated English language secondary academic sources. Currently there's no evidence of this on the page, nothing secondary has been contributed to the page and nothing is readily available to validate its fork from courage, where people may feasibly be looking for information on the term "civil courage" and to where this page should redirect. Edaham (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I am herewith stating that there demonstrably exists a large amount of specific, in-depth coverage in non-English sources. Whether you guys like it or not, that does satisfy sourcing requirements (sources need be neither English, nor online. Remember that one?) Lemme illustrate:

Andreas H. Apelt, Heide Gebhardt, Eckard Jesse (Hrsg.): Zivilcourage gestern und heute: Pflicht oder Kür? Mitteldeutscher Verlag, Halle (Saale) 2014, ISBN 978-3-95462-319-8

Gerd-Bodo von Carlsburg, Karl-Heinz Dammer, Helmut Wehr (Hrsg.): „Hätte ich doch nicht weggeschaut!“ – Zivilcourage früher und heute. Brigg Pädagogik, Augsburg 2011, ISBN 978-3-87101-708-7

Johannes Czwalina: Wer mutig ist, der kennt die Angst. Zivilcourage statt Opportunismus. Brendow, Moers 2008, ISBN 978-3-86506-212-3.

Dieter Deiseroth: Zivilcourage am Arbeitsplatz – Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen. In: Hermann Reichold, Albert Löhr, Gerhard Blickle (Hrsg.): Wirtschaftsbürger oder Marktopfer? Hampp, München 2001, ISBN 3-87988-541-9.

Stefan Frohloff: Gesicht zeigen! Handbuch für Zivilcourage. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main 2001, ISBN 3-593-36807-2

Wolfgang Heuer: Couragiertes Handeln. zu Klampen, Lüneburg 2002, ISBN 3-934920-13-6.

Max Hollweg: Es ist unmöglich von dem zu schweigen, was ich erlebt habe: Zivilcourage im Dritten Reich. Mit einem Vorwort von Detlef Garbe. 3. Aufl. Mindt, Bielefeld 2000, ISBN 3-00-002694-0.

Kai Jonas, Margarete Boos, Veronika Brandstätter (Hrsg.): Zivilcourage trainieren: Theorie und Praxis. Hogrefe, Göttingen 2006, ISBN 3-8017-1826-3.

Ulrich Kühne (Hrsg.): Mutige Menschen. Frauen und Männer mit Zivilcourage. Vorwort von Ulrich Wickert. Elisabeth Sandmann Verlag, München 2006, ISBN 3-938045-13-2.

Dieter Lünse, Katty Nöllenburg, Jörg Kowalczyk, Florian Wanke: Zivilcourage können alle! Ein Trainingshandbuch für Schule und Jugendarbeit. Verl. an der Ruhr, Mülheim an der Ruhr 2011, ISBN 978-3-8346-0813-0.

Gerd Meyer: Lebendige Demokratie. Zivilcourage und Mut im Alltag. Forschungsergebnisse und Praxisperspektiven. 2. Auflage. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2007, ISBN 3-8329-0444-1.

Gerd Meyer, Ulrich Dovermann, Siegfried Frech, Günther Gugel (Hrsg.): Zivilcourage lernen. Analysen – Modelle – Arbeitshilfen. 2. Auflage. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung/ Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg, 2007, ISBN 3-89331-537-3.

Gerd Meyer: Mut und Zivilcourage. Grundlagen und gesellschaftliche Praxis. Verlag Barbara Budrich. Opladen Berlin Toronto 2014 ISBN 978-3-8474-0172-8 (Paperback) 978-3-8474-0423-1 (eBook)

Gerald Praschl, Marco Hecht: Ich habe Nein gesagt – Zivilcourage in der DDR. Kai Homilius Verlag, Berlin 2002, ISBN 3-89706-891-5.

Rob Riemen: Adel des Geistes – Ein vergessenes Ideal. Siedler, München 2008, ISBN 978-3-88680-948-6.

Siegbert A. Warwitz: Vom Sinn des Wagens. Warum Menschen sich gefährlichen Herausforderungen stellen. In: DAV (Hrsg.): Berg 2006. München-Innsbruck-Bozen 2005. Seiten 96–111. ISBN 3-937530-10-X

Wolfram Wette: Zivilcourage unter extremen Bedingungen. Empörte, Helfer und Retter in der Wehrmacht. Freiburger Rundbrief 1/2004.

Eva-Maria Zehrer (Red.): Ein ganz normaler Tag – Gedanken über Zivilcourage. Sächsischen Landeszentrale für politische Bildung, Dresden 2007.(PDF)

...and looky, there's even a fair amount of scholarly English sources: on the first page of this Scholar search, I count three English-language papers specifically dealing with the subject. - We can discuss the necessity of a separate page vs covering the subject at Courage, but source- or notability-wise, you have no leg to stand on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, English-language books: [30]. Now that was some easy WP:BEFORE. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand German could you please post the relevant sources over to the article's talk page where other speakers of the language can validate them? I understand that you may be involved in the article, but a clear outline of work to be done to avoid deletion has been laid out. One of those pieces of work is to sufficiently source the article. You are right that the sources don't have to be online or in English, but they definitely do have to be present in the article. At the moment it simply appears to be a piece of OR sourced from a website of an award. Thank you for your patience and contributions. Edaham (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be far better to have this conversation on the article's talk page. If there's a sufficient wealth of information to support this article's creation and this info is placed on the talk page, it is highly likely that whoever reviews this AfD will decide to keep the article and tag it for improvement. Lastly, I did check the article's potential for alternative sourcing, and obviously the term gets used a lot, but this in its self doesn't make it a notable concept, and the page as it is looks like a promotional page for this organization: [31] Edaham (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left some notes on sourcing on the talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some languages may warrant a separate article on civil vs military courage, English does not.--Pontificalibus 16:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dictionary definition where the main topic is covered elsewhere (Courage). -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the award page - s there such a thing as a Promo fork. A redirect to either the Award or Courage is best - I prefer the latter.PRehse (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace' if creator so wishes, to allow time to create a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)~~leaning keep~~ even though article as it stands fails WP:NOTESSAY and is in desperate need of editing for sourcing and encyclopedic tone, at present, it reads like an ADVERT for a definition put forward by Civil Courage Prize sponsors. Nevertheless, there is ant least one academic article in English, 2007, Civil courage: Implicit theories, related concepts, and measurement, and this 2014 article in DW Civil courage: You don't need to be a social Rambo by a social psychologist who is not among the co-authors of the 2007 academic paper. But a JSTOR search gets 339 hits, the first 3 of which use the term "civil courage" in the title: Civil Courage and Human Dignity: How to Regain Respect for the Fundamental Values of Western Democracy; Gabrielle Giffords: A Study in Civil Courage, albeit the 3rd sounds äußerst German, Civil Courage ("Zivilcourage"): The Case of Knut Wicksell - except Wicksell was Swedish, and the author teaches at the U. of Stockholm. You add that to book titles like Intellectuals and the Public Good: Creativity and Civil Courage, (Cambridge University Press,) and Civil courage : a response to contemporary conflict and prejudice (published in New York by Peter Lang (publisher), and it looks like a valid and notable topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

would that not be a good candidate for move to draft then? Edaham (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Move to draft; and - if that doesn't work out - no prejudice against re-creation in the event that someone, someday creates an encyclopedic article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be on board with that. Although the recent attempt of the originator to blank the article in a fit of ghastly remorse doesn't bode well for its future if draftified :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~If it's ultimately abandoned then someone will speedy G13 it, no objection to giving draftication a chance. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the references above attest, this is a very well-known concept in German (as Zivilcourage), and also covered in English. There is certainly enough material here for an article. Sandstein 10:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references given and many in the German version show this topic received substantial coverage in literature and is worthy of article. The article, even at its present state, it actually passes DICDEF and can do more with improvement since sources exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can read German. I don't have access to the printed German sources, but I read the online citations under "Weblinks" in de:Zivilcourage. These two are WP:RS, and are specifically about the subject: "Willkommen auf dem Zivilcourage-Portal!" (University of Zurich); and "Sieben Tipps für mehr Zivilcourage " (Süddeutsche Zeitung). I googled, and found: "Zivilcourage - Alle Artikel und Hintergründe" (Der Spiegel); "Zivilcourage zeigen" (Bundespolizei); "Zivilcourage" (de:Zeitschrift für Psychologie); "Der Mut des Bürgers" (Bayerischer Rundfunk); and Zivilcourage: Wie der Staat seine Bürger im Stich lässt (Michael Wolffsohn, a 2016 book). My 5 finds were among the top 13 hits.

IMO the English article as it stands is rather weak, but the subject - discussed in the media, in academic circles, and by the police - without doubt passes WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:00, 23 March 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 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birbal Jha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not notable. Article recreated by a SPA almost immediately after previous AfD, which follows the pattern of sock/meat activity this article has always suffered from. Yes, he has won some insignificant awards from parochial organisations but he's basically a self-publicist. Sitush (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are still not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 21 March 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 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

26 N. Halsted[edit]

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

This does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG nor WP:TVSHOW. WP:BEFORE turned up far too few sources (only main thing is the official website, and even that just has a one-liner about the show, which is quoted in-article already). TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:00, 16 March 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 10:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 Finger Club[edit]

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

A porno series that appears to not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NFILMS based on WP:BEFORE and reference present in article. TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, ,fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very specific theme, not encyclopedic. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:44, 22 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1st Avenue (Portland, Oregon)[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)

No overt claims to notability. The lead says it all "1st Avenue are two streets running north–south in Portland, Oregon, in the United States." The only reference in the article is an unrelated news report about a business which has an address on the street (street only mentioned once in passing).

I read WP:ROADOUTCOMES, however, this appears to fail GNG and fall into the second major bullet point ("City streets are contested, but minor streets are generally deleted.") I believe it to be the latter. WP:BEFORE confirmed the tthe streets definitely exist, but not much else. TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is for 3 articles. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable road per WP:ROADOUTCOMES. SportingFlyer talk 05:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This vote was for 1st Avenue (Portland, Oregon). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's a strange merge. None of these streets are notable, and I disagree with the redirect candidate below. SportingFlyer talk 00:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:, it was merged per a suggestion below as the three nominations were virtually identical and to take up less space in the feed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely logical - just didn't expect there to be other avenues to comment on! SportingFlyer talk 04:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This vote was for 1st Avenue (Portland, Oregon). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was for 3rd Avenue (Portland, Oregon). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should we merge all three of these AFDs into one? Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 19:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Moaz786:. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: How about redirecting to List of streets in Portland, Oregon? There are similar list for other cities. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheSandDoctor, SportingFlyer, Onel5969, and Moaz786: Pinging you all in case you'd like to consider this option, too. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mark the train: Oops, meant to ping you above instead of "Moaz786". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If not keep, then redirect (note: article creator). I created these stubs, and I imagine there is coverage about the history of these waterfront streets, which are part of Portland's early history. However, I don't have time to research and expand these articles in the immediate future. My vote is to redirect these stubs to List of streets in Portland, Oregon, which I just created and mentioned above for consideration, instead of deleting potentially expandable articles. Also, if these articles are redirected or deleted, there are many articles needing to have links removed:
Pages that link to "1st Avenue (Portland, Oregon)"
Pages that link to "2nd Avenue (Portland, Oregon)"
Pages that link to "3rd Avenue (Portland, Oregon)"

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - These are major Downtown streets all important in the development of Portland, called the "commercial core" or Portland at the turn of the century[32], was the center of Old Town Chinatown according to the book Sweet Cakes, Long Journey: The Chinatowns of Portland, Oregon and, with zero surprise, all full of historic notable buildings and landmarks like the Merchant Hotel, the Dekum Building, the Pallay Building, Auditorium and Music Hall, World Trade Center, Hotel Albion, Plaza Blocks, the Keller Auditorium and Lan Su Chinese Garden. All the nom writes about is current article condition. AfD is not cleanup.--Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When you have closely spaced streets (about 200+ feet apart) laid out in a grid pattern (often with one way traffic pattern) none of these streets are really notable, or anymore notable than the districts these streets are located in.Acnetj (talk) 03:13, 23 March 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 10:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Randolph Hutchins[edit]

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

The only reference here that actually would count as a secondary source, the one about President Monson and Elder Oaks presenting President Obama with his family history, has the major drawback of not mentioning Hutchins at all. The first three references in the article are in the first case misciting some individuals self-published file of references as a publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The whole line shows a failure to understand lots of related issues. A book being in the Library of Congress is not a sign of notability to the author, or even the book. Nothing in the article comes even close to demonstrating notability as an academic, which is what the article tries to present. Hutchins books did not have broad impact, and he was not editor-in-chief of a major publication. There are notable specialists in geneology, but Hutchins is not one of them. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think he fits WP:NACADEMIC which is the closest criterion here. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:43, 23 March 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 10:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brockmans Gin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article that does not establish product notability. Industry awards do not prove notability in industries that give awards in order to advertise. No in-depth independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Brockmans Gin. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ten years after the subject's article was first deleted, there is nothing new in terms of WP:SIGCOV. "It's gin. It's in a black bottle." A search reveals primarily promotional mentions, contests and press releases. The new article is as promotional as the 2008 article was. Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. In fact I considered speedily deleting the article, as it was clearly created in order to evade the outcome of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Brockmans Gin. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional. The author has said that he removed all the promotional material - well nearly all the promotion - and almost nothing is left. How did this article last for 2 days? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with all of the above. Risker (talk) 00:54, 19 March 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) feminist (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fu'ad Aït Aattou[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's eligibility (notability) criteria. Extremely limited career. Severely lacking content and multiple reliable sources. WikiMeWiki (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting our notability criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACTOR with two prominent roles in notable films The Last Mistress and What the Day Owes the Night, also has four other screen credits. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that The Last Mistress had a Budget of $5.7 million and at the Box office made $1.8 million. What the Day Owes the Night (film) had a Budget of €13.2 million and made at the Box office US$2 million. Are films that fail to even breakeven considered notable works? Dream Focus 15:48, 16 March 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)} 17:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Not only meets WP:NACTOR as mentioned above, but meets GNG as well. There's the source from The Age that's already used in the article, and a ton of stuff in French, e.g. [33]. Those two articles alone are enough for the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two films he has been in weren't big budget ones and neither broke even at the box office. So they were failures, not notable films. Dream Focus 19:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, failures like, say, Un Chien Andalou or The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting. Thank god there are experts like you on Wikipedia. 37.117.118.138 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two films listed in his Filmography in his article are the ones I'm referring to. The two you just mentioned are one that cost < 100,000 francs and was 21 minutes long, and another that doesn't list its budget but it only 66 minutes long. Did either of this make any money? Dream Focus 15:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? Whether a film makes money or not is basically irrelevant to notability. 37.117.118.138 (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the Day Owes the Night (film) has no Reception section or any reliable sources mentioned in the article for that. Are there any in French someone can find for it? If it got no reliable sources talking about it, and it failed at the box office, then I don't think you could call it notable. Dream Focus 04:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NACTOR. Nowhere in WP:MOSFILM does it state that a film has to make money to have a WikiP article and the same is true for actors. MarnetteD|Talk 17:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 192.160.216.52|192.160.216.52 has proven that he passes the WP:GNG from coverage about him, so that's enough. Dream Focus 04:13, 17 March 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 07:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Malayalam[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Apart from passing mentions in a couple of newspapers, there are no sources and in-depth coverage to establish notability. MT Train^Talk 02:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator's assessment; no in depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delet It's a facebook meme page. It's obviously someone just someone using wikipedia to promote their dank maymays. Speedy it under A11. 💵 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Comment: the trollface made me cringe out of the planet, I thought I was on R/comedy_cemetery. 💵 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The page creator has attempted to remove the link to this discussion and posted various legal warnings on the page: [34]. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm gonna ask an admin to ban him, he's clearly a promo account who is not here to contribute. 💵Money emoji💵^Talk 11:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note Page creator blocked as it appears to be a promotional/spam only account, on top of the CSD/AFD tag removals and possible legal threat. Would recommend CSD G11 for the article. -- ferret (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather prefer this discussion to move along to have a G4 in the future. MT Train^Talk 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG notability criteria. No non-trivial coverage whatsoever in sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:27, 19 March 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 Hubba Bubba. Sandstein 07:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hubba Bubba soda[edit]

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

No assertion of notability Amisom (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to section in Hubba Bubba More appropriate as a sub-note in the gum article than stand-alone (also I want that soda again; it was delicious!). Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, "No assertion of notability" is absolutely not a criterion for deletion. It's just not. Read WP:ARTN. Secondly, this soda easily passes WP:GNG. Check this article in Spin Magazine and this discussion in AdWeek. If that's not enough, consider this food chem article which uses the pink goop as an experimental subject. Also, this is a really old kind of soda. While there is a lot of blogging about it on the web now, the chances are good that the best sources are offline for the most part. But there's enough to pass GNG, so we're done here. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frequently makes lists of the top ten most remembered soft drinks.[35][36][37]. A product that well remembered after all those decades is surely notable. Not always remembered in a good way,[38] but tasting bad is fortunately not a rationale for deletion. SpinningSpark 23:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps merge to Hubba Bubba - no sources in article is a good indication of its lack of notability. The refs suggested above are mere passing references. Sometimes we can have articles on"has been" products, but this was a "never was". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that the refs found fall short of in-depth coverage, but "mere passing mentions" is a bit unfair. The book I linked (admittedly not on a relevant subject) goes on about the soda for a couple of pages. Most of the list articles give it a paragraph or so. The Spin article talks about it for about 120 words and includes some citable facts such as the manufacturer and country of origin. SpinningSpark 12:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A soda based upon the gum, so redirect to the gum. Szzuk (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Weak case for existence on its own. Makes much more sense as part of the Hubba Bubba narrative. Which are three words you rarely get to type together in this life. Mattyjohn (talk) 23:27, 22 March 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 07:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sybil Gibson Higley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Complete lack of notability for encyclopedic purposes. Notability for Wikipedia article subjects is determined based on significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The references here are neither reliable nor significant to anyone other than family members and members of the LDS church. Other than two obituaries, there is no newsprint coverage. The genealogical books listed in the reference titled "Books" are of interest only to genealogists, family members, ancestors. One reference link goes to a primary source cemetery records website for a county in the state of Oregon. Notability has not been established, is unlikely to ever be established, and the article is completely lacking in encyclopedic value. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are entirely primary, and the only ones with significant coverage are paid obituaries. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To begin with, I question how anyone could argue that Higley is notable to members of the LDS Church. There are 4,600 Family History Centers. They exist in 126 countries. There are also addistional ones that have closed, I can't place the exact number, but it is probably a few hundred. Some centers only have two staff members. I am a Latter-day Saint, whose parents were co-directors of one center and spent 7 years as a staff member at another one. The Family History Center director is not even a major figure to the members of a stake, numbering on average about 3,500 people. Although some Family History Centers have primarily users who are from other faiths, the center director would not neccesarily even be known to many of those people. In most cases broad policy decisions on family history centers, including number of staff, hours of operation, and even weather to close them is made by ward and stake leaders, not the director of the center. There are people who have managed to make themselves impactful to the Latter-day Saint community through studies of family history, such as some people mentions in Hearts Turned to the Fathers: A History of the Geneological Society of Utah, 1894-1994, Higley is not one of them. Also, if we examine her books they are extremely non-impactful. They are not widely of interest to geneologists. This would go either to books written on general themes of geneology, such as "How to find sources on your New England ancestors" or "Finding our Guyanese cousins: How to link to your Rhode Island ancestors other children they had while on shore leave during trading voyages to the Caribbean. The other type of book is things like the Barbour Collection or The Great Migration to New England. These are huge collections of records that are then published and make it easy to find your ancestors information. Being held by the Family History Library in Salt Lake City is not a demonstration of anything. The Family History Library aims to be a very large holder of lots of information. I have to admit this is one of the cases of a person who falls the furthest from any notability criteria I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John Pack Lambert. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 17 March 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.