< 24 March	26 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Halitović[edit]

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

Non notable politician. The mayor of a small Bosnian city of 12,000 residents is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. Armin Halitović does not even have an article in Bosnian nor Serbian, Croatian, or any other Yugoslavian language although that would be plausible in those languages. Even some major famous cities in the world with populations in the millions like Phnom Penh or Beirut do not have articles about their mayors let alone why would a small little known city have an article about it's mayor. Also article lacks important sources.--Otis the Texan (talk) --Otis the Texan (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strictly speaking, language isn't relevant to our notability criteria at all — people who can be properly sourced as clearing our notability standards are kept regardless of any debate about whether or not they're as famous among English speakers as they are among their own language community. What's more determinative here, however, is that this person isn't properly sourced as clearing our notability standards at all. The only "references" here are to his own self-published website about himself, not to reliable source coverage about him in media, and the article has existed for ten full years without ever having any better sources added. Further, mayors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by the quality of the sourcing, not by the statement of being a mayor per se. So yes, this is entirely deletable; language just doesn't have anything to do with the reasons why that's true. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 refs - 1 primary ref, 1 dead primary ref. Szzuk (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd change my tune if sources could be provided in another language, but based on what we have this person does not meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:12, 2 April 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. This looks like a classic case of WP:HEY. The article has been improved significantly during the AfD discussion. Consequently, the issue which userfication would rectify has been addressed anyway. Fairly clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Congdon[edit]

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

DeProded. Not sure I understand the edit summary, but subject doesn’t appear notabile. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edit summary I provided when I dePRODed the articlew was "dePROD, not much in google news but Gale looks like it has several scholarly sources" I was referring to Wikipedia:Gale Mduvekot (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for explaining. I was looking for someone named Gale in the article and when I didn’t see it, I couldn’t understand. Ms. Congdon May be notable but my opinion has always been I don’t care what the sources say; I care about the article says. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to give you, at a minimum, an overview of the subject at hand. And as an academic issue, it’s one thing for someone to say “oh, that’s cool, I wan to learn more about that” based on what they read in a wiki article. And I do hope the articles inspire people to do that. But not only does a one or two sentence article that simply says John teaches History at XYZ University not inspire the average person to follow up, the fact that John is a history professor in and of itself does not make him notable. So, I believe the onus is on you, as the person who deprodded the article, to say more than there are sources. Provide at least one or two sentences based on what you find in the database. You obviously took the time to look her up. Share what you learned, no matter how brief. If it was shared, I would not have nominated! Now, it’s 5 am and I am in the hospital. Time to go back to bed.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - MensanDeltiologist please review WP:BEFORE before you nominate any more AfDs, as it covers why you need to do the research first. And I recommend you consider withdrawing the nomination, and/or accepting Mduvekot's suggestion of Userfy'ing, given WP:BEFORE. --Theredproject (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"my opinion has always been I don’t care what the sources say; I care about the article says." is 100% not the policy here. We check for existing sources before discussing deletion, always. Please read WP:BEFORE.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. After I dePRODed the article [1], I wanted to move it to draft namepace so that the creator MarsLovesDogs would be able to work on it, but was too late; it has already been brought to AfD. In it's current state the article is unsuitable for inclusion, but there is potential, and perhaps with some suggestions from helpful editors it can be made into a decent article. There are many good suggestions on the user's talk page, and I would be willing to provide further guidance if needed/desirable. Mduvekot (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search does not turn up enough in term so sourcing to justify keeping it. She has written a few books and there are many routine mentions and reprints of her biography, however there is zero independent in-depth coverage.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that she has won several awards from national scholarly organizations, per [2] "Congdon is the 1988 and 1999 recipient of the Manual Barkan Memorial Award for scholarship from the National Art Education Association and the 1998 Ziegfeld Award from the United States Society for Education Through Art for international work in the arts." There is also more here to begin work from [3] Theredproject (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable artist, writer, and academic. I have greatly improved her article. She has an entry on Encyclopedia.com. She's contributed to several books, ~~one of which was reviewed by the Washington Post~~ several which have been reviewed (in at least 10 different sources and added to the article by ReaderofthePack). She has gone on tour with her art, displaying it in several museums including the St. Petersburg Museum of History. She's received several awards for her teaching ability and research. Her work has been mentioned in newspapers. Passes WP:ANYBIO for "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" and "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Passes WP:ARTIST for the person's work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" and "has won significant critical attention." Passes WP:ACADEMIC for "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" and "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" as she's received awards for her teaching abilities and research into folklore. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Manual Barkan Memorial Award for scholarship" is well-known? Thanks for this informative tidbit.104.163.147.121 (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was given by the National Art Education Association. There are other awards listed in her article. Additionally, I listed several indications she is notable, and that was just one of many pieces of evidence. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but "well known" means that something is known well by a large number of people. The "Manual Barkan Memorial Award for scholarship" is basically the deifnition of an award that very few people have ever heard of. The newspaper link you provide is also OCR scrambles, so who knows what it says. There is no evidence that she has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Such recognition, by definition, would have to be "widely recognized" in published sources, which is what is missing here. The encylopedia.com bio is good, but one would have to assume, given the detail, that it is just a republished bio. How on earth do they know that she is an independent voter? My point overall is that the small awards and honours she has had are routine for a routine non-notable academic. Please provide actual concrete sources if you disagree.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you are ignoring everything else I said in my initial comment. There are many pieces of evidence I've presented that demonstrate she is notable in addition to what you're discussing. She has traveled with her art and had it shown in major museums. That alone would qualify her. Her books have received national attention. That also would qualify her. She has received significant discussion in secondary sources, which would satisfy WP:GNG by itself. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lonehexagon, I've added reviews for some of the works she's edited or contributed to - I think that she would pass CREATIVE now, for having a notable body of work (10 of the sources are reviews of her books), but I'm going to abstain from arguing for or against deletion because I oversaw the student who created the article. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to ping MensanDeltiologist ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC. National Art Education Association award; extensive publications with lots of reviews, established and leads program. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : While @Mduvekot: initially wanted to Userfy, editors have improved the article significantly since that moment.[4] I agree with @Mary Mark Ockerbloom: that the WP:RS that have been added indicate she meets WP:ACADEMIC. I also not that the nom admitted they did not follow WP:BEFORE and have declined to withdraw the nom. In fact, they have seemed to have left the discussion. Theredproject (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ACADEMIC and needs to be kept. Z359q (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep, I don't think that the sources provided by Lonehexagon are as strong as they say they are, but they're probably just enough to pass this past WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:17, 2 April 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Homes[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an non notable private business. Significant RS coverage not found. The article lists no sources, apart from a link to the corporate web site. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Jonbowman with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See page history for improvements, has been mostly cleared of promotional material, notable topic. Nominator previously tried to CSD and PROD this article. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A simple assertion that the topic is "notable" is insufficient in AfD discussions. Are there sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. I've added sources. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources, as shown in this diff, clearly do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. They are directory listings, interviews, and non-independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic WP:CORPSPAM. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A company that was the victim of the property crash and disappeared in 2009. Even if it was well referenced which it isn't i don't see any encyclopedic value in this article. Szzuk (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as above. As a side-note, it's very weird that an article about a UK subject is written in blatantly American English; makes it seem even more spammy that it already is. Waggers TALK 12:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Wykes[edit]

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

not notable cricketer DocumentError (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cricketers who have appeared in at least one List A, First-class cricket or T20 match is notable. This cricketer has played in 3 List A matches. Cricinfo Abishe (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. List A cricketer. Once again I will use my regular argument of "why don't these people make themselves known nine years earlier so they can protest against articles like these before we write them?" I would love to know what, to this user, constitutes "not notable". As with most first-class cricketers it seems to be "never heard of". Bobo . 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to pass WP:NSPORTS. -- Dane ^talk 05:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they pass WP:NCRICKET criterion #1 (played List A cricket). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:16, 28 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Gustafsson (artist)[edit]

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

No actual coverage, sources are all primary and I can find even less searching myself. Designing a band's cover art isn't really a notability criteria. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find any sources that may grant passing WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS to establish WP:ARTIST. Theredproject (talk) 22:59, 26 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Schloss[edit]

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

No indication of notability, does not meet any criterion of WP:NACTOR. One very minor bit part in a rather famous film but nothing else of any note that I can see. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACTOR. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not currently meet WP:NACTOR. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If her career continues to grow the article can always be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 22:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly fits notability to be an article. Makro (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I have added a reliable source from The British Film Institute. I assume they are independent enough for Wikipedia.Makro (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing significant in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 00:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a bit part in one big movie doesn't establish notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: She also plays a leading role in Frozen:Live at the Hyperion. If that helps boost notability.Makro (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Makro: That is totally unreferenced. I removed it from the article because the IC makes no mention of Ms. Schloss. This is a growing issue here at wikipedia- Editors entering something into an article and reference it with something that doesn't confirm what's written. This is something I'm increasingly finding and for my hard work to keep this bullshit out of articles I got called pigheaded by the editor who entered the shit in the article and knew the reference didn't back it up....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Frozen show is done at the theme park's theatre multiple times a day... as notable as their nightly fireworks, compared to cities that have fireworks may be once or twice a year. Acnetj (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Ambrosiaster (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 10:16, 28 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Jurgen[edit]

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

A search for information about this person that would enable them to meet the General Notability Guideline has failed. There's nothing but run-of-the-mill PR stuff, nothing that is independent or that meets the threshold of "Reliable, Independent Sources" that the GNG requires. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the discussion. I have zero financial or business motive to the presentation of celebrity and media figure biographies. I am a big fan of numerous new media, important individuals and would like to add their biographies to the library such that they meet a standard of legacy media and/or new media prominence or impact on public discussion. I have a longer list in mind, though I believe it's thoughtful. I have a background in media and studies therein and understand this landscape extremely well. I also believe I'm a thoughtful and concise writer for articles, as well as editor as I intend to continue past my initial fifteen or so to date. I do hope you'll consider all of this before deleting my article. I think there's some key areas of world events and influencers, especially to a younger audience, lacking on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Norman Spantz (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Norman Spantz: You have zero financial or business motive to promote Lex Jurgen? Come on now, don't be shy. This link says differently. [5]. Wikipedia DOES allow people with a Conflict of Interest to edit if they declare it. If they don't declare it, that's a whole other story. You should read WP:COI and see if you feel like being a bit more open. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I allowed the gentleman to use my name in a press release to gain bargaining advantage with his employer. I'm a fan only. I am often requested to do such things for digital media entertainers. I understand it seems odd. I could swear out some kind of declaration to this effect, but that's probably hyperbole. I am a fan of his work among many others who I believe merit entries on Wikipedia though digital is often overlooked. But zero dollars or cents. I'm not sure there's any financial benefit to him either. In fact, I'm certain he'd not do this himself. I'm a long time Wikipedia user, newer editor, past donor, I think I'm fairly familiar with the landscape, but I'll leave it for others to decide. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norman Spantz (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A great big bag of nothing. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, failed WP:GNG.-Richie Campbell (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Improve. Add more reliable sources and links Маргарита Бабовникова (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:21, 30 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Sandwich[edit]

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

Seems to fail both WP:WEB and WP:MAGAZINE. Not enough third party notice of this WP:FRINGE publication. jps (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB and/or WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 2 April 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. Normally, I'd relist this due to the lack of discussion, but WP:V is sacred. If somebody comes up with legitimate sources to establish WP:V, WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ngweduang, Myanmar[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a geographic location whose existence I'm unable to properly verify. The coordinates template doesn't land on any named community, but just in the wilderness outside Ywangan, and a Google search fails to find a single source outside of Wikipedia mirrors and other sources that likely got their information from us rather than vice versa -- Google, in fact, actually asks me if I meant Ngwesaung (which unfortunately isn't close enough to the location mapped here that I can just immediately presume this to be a typo for that, though it may still be.) So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who's much more knowledgeable about Myanmar than I am can properly verify that this place actually exists, but at the moment it looks more like either a hoax or an error than a real place. WP:GEOLAND does not confer an automatic notability freebie on every place that's merely claimed to exist, but requires at an absolute minimum some actual verification in a reliable source that the place really does exist — however, I can't find any reliable sources to verify it. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. samee converse 18:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 26 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig McLeish[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he not played in a fully-professional league, and no evidence of any significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Article was PRODed last year, this was removed by its creator who then added a claim to the article stating the player had played first team football for Falkirk, and was therefore notable. However, this is not backed up by the Soccerbase source used as a reference, and several months later, the editor hasn't cited any alternative source for their claim. Jellyman (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Only had one appearance on the bench for Falkirk according to Soccerway, never made the field. NZFC^(talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As it happens I have watched McLeish, both when he was playing for my team and subsequently for opponents, in leagues where almost all teams and players are part-time. His has been a rather typical lower league journeyman career; nothing to match the WP:NFOOTY criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:55, 26 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) 09:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had a look there for any reference to him having made a league debut for Falkirk, but didn't find anything. In the absence of that, he doesn't meet the criteria. Crowsus (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems a bit of a journeyman, but as everyone else says above he fails NFooty. Govvy (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he played 4 times for Falkirk in the period the infobox claims then he could have played a full match in the old SPL, (ie a fully professional league) as Falkirk were in the SPL 2005-2010. However I can find evidence to suggest that he did play in an SPL match, thus I think Delete is justified as argued above. Dunarc (talk) 22:56, 31 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moveboxer[edit]

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

Company looks like it never really too off, and now seems to be defunct. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SUSTAINED. Edwardx (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From its outset and AfC acceptance, most of the article content and references have related to the predecessor Lockboxer rather than to this venture. The SassyCEO reference is a short item which falls far short of adequate for WP:CORPDEPTH. There was also a 2014 Daily Herald item ([6] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) which claims they had 2,500 clients over a 2 year period. At some point subsequently, Moveboxer seems to have disappeared into a redirect to Salesboxer but I am seeing no WP:RS coverage of that. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough dedicated content about the subject to meet WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:25, 28 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 List of rail accidents (2010–present). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Callaway train crash[edit]

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

An article on a local news story. Coverage shows no signs of persistence, having fallen off after about a day and briefly returning to report a charge for the driver. Near impossible to argue there has been any significant lasting effects; no one died and no major safety regulations were put in place as a result of this incident. How anyone thought this belonged in an encyclopedia is beyond me. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sign of notability The Banner talk 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable grade-crossing accident. Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect title to List of rail accidents (2010–present) where it can have a sentence (List covers non-bluelinked accidents) as per WP:PRESERVE. This is a plausible search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per E. M. Gregory Nightfury 11:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per E. M. Gregory Acebulf (talk) 01:16, 31 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 Pedro Pablo Kuczynski. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski[edit]

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

Nominated for PROD, an IP changed it to a redirect instead, which was undone by the article creator. This is a WP:CONTENTFORK. All of the information contained within can be presented as it is at Pedro Pablo Kuczynski and Operation Car Wash. A significant amount of the limited content on this page is about other Peruvian presidents who resigned and the process for resignation, so WP:COATRACK. I'd be fine restoring the redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, without prejudice against the recreation of a redirect if people feel strongly enough that one is necessary (which I don't). There's not even close to enough content here, nor is Kuczynski's existing WP:BLP so very incredibly long, as to suggest that this would require a separate article from the existing BLP. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote: Redirect to Presidency of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski. That's exactly the type of article that national heads of state are generally expected to have to help control the size of their BLPs by spinning off some of the political content — so now that it exists, it's an entirely logical target for the content about his resignation, which still does not need its own standalone article as a separate topic in its own right. Thanks to Carwil for taking on a legitimate topic that would probably have gone overlooked otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but… the target should be a not-yet-created Presidency of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski. There are four other end-of-term articles: First impeachment process against Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, Pardon of Alberto Fujimori, Second impeachment process against Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, and Kenjivideos scandal. Much of this material would better be merged into a single narrative (although the impeachment votes probably have stand-alone notability and have a lot of detailed voting behavior that we should legitimately record, probably in stand-alone articles). Kuczynski has a long and complicated career and this material shouldn't eat up so much space in his biography (it violates WP:UNDUE), but it should be consolidated somewhere. The best way is to bring in new material and create a presidency article that covers 2016 to 2018 in a thorough, balanced way.--Carwil (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also a potential solution, but that article would need to actually exist before we could merge this there: if we just moved this page to that title, it would still put WP:UNDUE weight on his resignation if nobody was willing to take on actually expanding it to cover the rest of his term in depth. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: Presidency of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski.--Carwil (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pedro Pablo Kuczynski or a more specific article. We do not need multiple articles on him. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eurodancemix[edit]

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

Non-notable website, fails WP:NWEB. Unable to find any reliable, independent sources referring to the website. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A website in existence for 2 years. No refs. Szzuk (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in article, and based on what's in the article, doesn't even seem worth the effort to search for some. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babasola Ogunwa[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- a person has to win the election and thereby hold the office to clear WP:NPOL, not just run as a candidate, but this offers no strong or well-sourced indication of preexisting notability for other reasons. No prejudice against recreation next year if he wins, but nothing here is enough to get him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that he does not currently meet WP:NPOL. I also found copyright violations of this site which I have removed, requesting a rev-del. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 30 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super angel[edit]

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

Redirect to angel investor. Not enough in reliable sources to justify a separate article. Edwardx (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and misguided nomination. There are dozens of citations in the article, and thousands if not tens of thousands overall, many describing what these investors are and what makes them different from angel investors. Super angel investors are generally not angel investors: they are professional investors and often invest other people's money. I think the mistake comes from a hasty assumption that a "super" angel a type of regular angel but towards the large size. It is a distinct, well-defined, agreed-to class of Silicon Valley investor and, as such, a separate and non-overlapping subject. Just like "big data" versus data or "Big Bird" versus bird. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable per Wikidemon. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in the sources listed in the article and elsewhere. James500 (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikidemon. It's a distinct thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegnawl (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angel investor -- Merge content. No reason it can't just be a subsection while retaining the same information.Past Bedtime ^{[no sleep]} 21:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - Dont see the point why it is nominated. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:25, 31 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DAWN ODG[edit]

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

Promotional article of non notable local musician with blog and unreliable sources. Possible autobiography –Ammarpad (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources listed are not promotional sources Sarkodievi (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional page, and not a notable performer. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:34, 31 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genius Crowds[edit]

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

References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A defunct crowdsourcing website, it shut after 3 years, notability not established by refs. Szzuk (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oslo institute of science and technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Lacking independent third party coverage. Not sure what this is -- it certainly shows some kind of company registration, so assume they exist. However all other sources and alleged registations with bodies such as the UN are merely screen shots of what or may not be a user profile of a person. Here, it is clear they are NOT a consultative member of the UN (contrary to claim) and they own website states here they do not award academic degrees. So they are not a school or university. Also, it is unclear why the article is about the "Oslo institute of science and technology" while many sources refer to the "OSLO INSTITUTT FOR LEGAL STUDIES ADMINISTRATIV OG INTERNASJONAL VOLDGIFT". Very much reminiscent of a promotional article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HOAX, everything about this indicates triviality rather than notability. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not clear what this is. A school? An organization? What do they teach? What are these registrations good for and what do they allow the organization to do? No significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, just directory listings and entries of "registrations". Do they provide classes? How do people enroll in training? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Hoax Theredproject (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This does indeed look like a hoax... -- Dane ^talk 05:36, 27 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fenty Beauty[edit]

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

The brand was established by Rihanna and has terrific amount of press mentions. I have doubts however that it has depth of coverage and comply with notability guidelines for brands or companies. The brand was established in 2017 so probably also WP:TOOSOON Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company is subject of broad international media coverage and discussion unrelated to its association with Rihanna.Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1 ref in the article that links to their webpage. One of many brands of cosmetics, no claim to notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article had major expansion, notability established. Szzuk (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh goodness. Ok well for one I owe Ritchie a debt of thanks as I wouldn’t have seen this except for their beginning the close which affected a different entry on my watchlist. I’ll make it my job to at least begin a broad expansion based on the virtually limitless sources, which describe the international cultural significance of this topic; maybe can get to DYK before the end of women’s history month. Two though, good lord y’all do we have a serious editor demographics problem and I haven’t the faintest idea how we’re going to make the level of progress we need on that. It’s absolutely nuts this entry is in such a state or should even seem like an AfD candidate. Actually...why did it? Even if one knew nothing more than what’s in the nomination, wouldn’t it be a valid search term appropriately redirected to Rihanna? I don’t see from edit history that we’re here because that was already attempted and reverted... I wouldn’t mention it since in any case here we are, but rushing to deletion may affect editor retention and I do think this example underscores how ill the project can afford that. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The international launch of this brand was major and extremely culturally significant. The depth of coverage is not an issue at all to meet notability guidelines. 333cale (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbarmadillo: Given that Szzuk has withdrawn the only delete ivote, this AfD is now eligible to be closed by nominator withdraw (procedure here: WP:WDAFD). Would you please consider doing so? The outcome here is now in WP:SNOW territory and it would be a courtesy to your fellow editors to allow all to move forward with other matters. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innisfree987 will do so. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:10, 27 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 Revenue stream. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annual recurring revenue[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Consists mostly of a dictionary definition. The person who disputed the prod added content that isn't relevant because the article is about annual recurring revenue and the content added pretty much says that there are different types of recurring revenue. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Revenue stream which has a recurring section and could be expanded. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. samee converse 18:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Revenue stream, which should be expanded to discuss this. Clearly a dictdef and not a viable stand-alone page, but a reasonable search term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded Revenue stream enough that it's a plausible redirect target without merging the two sentences at Annual recurring revenue. The rest of the article still needs a lot of work, I probably won't get it fully into good shape today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 27 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicklas Nielsen[edit]

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

Low-level driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of many articles created by the same (now blocked) user that do not meet the notability guidelines. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:43, 25 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 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim-Luis Schramm[edit]

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

Low-level driver who fails WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of many articles created by the same (now blocked) user that do not meet the notability guidelines. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 25 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 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Bohmbach[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 31 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 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deathline (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with no incoming links. The two entries have hatnotes to each other, and do not use this page. With "(disambiguation)" in its title, this is a non-plausible search term . —Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: primary topic plus one disambiguated title - hatnote is all that is needed. PamD 08:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 25 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 consensus. Sandstein 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Del Rendon[edit]

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

Very little WP:RS to establish notability. Doesn't pass GNG, nor WP:MUS. Seems like the foundation named after him does good work, but not rising to the level required. Theredproject (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I found these reliable sources: [7] [8] [9] [10] This article (from 2004) also states that "Del Rendon and the Puerto Rican Rum Drunks have been legends of the Starkville and Mississippi touring scenes for years." But I'm not sure if this is enough to meet GNG or NMUSICIAN, partly because two of the above sources are just a student newspaper (the Reflector). Every morning (there's a halo...) 02:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has some reliable sources coverage such as newspaper articles but am not seeing national level so its a weak keep Atlantic306 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 25 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! 07:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Psylocke[edit]

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

Nothing that suggests any of these alternate universe versions are encyclopedically notable. Only of interest to comic-book fans, and sourced solely from comic books. All the alternate versions are catalogued here, so there is no need to transwiki or anything, it should just be deleted as fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's crufty, but that's not a reason to delete. The size of the interested audience does not determine notability. Merging into the character's article is not feasible, as the combined size would automatically qualify for a size split. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I suppose my nomination was phrased in a way that was unclear, I revised it. I never meant to suggest that the audience size was grounds for deletion, it's simply non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NOTPLOT. Only in-universe plot summary, no third-party coverage. Sandstein 09:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be referenced entirely to the comics, no secondary coverage. Szzuk (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Argento Surfer, or failing that merge a heavily summarized version into Psylocke. BOZ (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Aman Bachchan[edit]

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

Not sure about any of those sources, looks like user generated content (such as directories). None of it really establishes notability. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a person who is a recognized kannada film producer. I've removed 2 citations where there was no data about the person. His movies have won awards. Articles on his films mentions him as a producer. Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be possible to find RS about all of this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After the AfD message was placed, I've cited 11 reliable sources, in which 5 mentions his names as the producer of the related film Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have to be in depth coverage of the subject. Also I am not sure most of them are RS (almost all seem to be to a word press page).Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve found one of such which you’ve mentioned, and have cited the same. None more available googling, and I like to bring to your concern that majority of the kannada film/actors articles uses cites as such wordpress pages. Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganeshprasadkp:--Can you please create a list of all such articles about Kannada film/actors which only use Wordpress as sources and do not have any significant hits in reliable newspapers/media etc., at my t/p.It will be much helpful.Regards~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:--here are few: Sundarakanda, Aasegobba Meesegobba, Gruhapravesha, Nagaradalli Nayakaru, Aathanka, Kraurya. There are many articles, including wordpress sites as a part of reference cites. Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 50+ citations of notable reliable sources, mentioning the movies produced by the article's person, and have included major awards' details of three of his movies. Presently there are no user generated directory contents, in the article. Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Almost all of those 50 sources talk about the movies, very little about the subject if at all present. His works indicate he might be notable, but I don't find any sources that have covered him in detail. MT Train^Talk 13:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it seems clear that, although he doesn’t get thorough coverage in some of the articles, they do show that he’s made a significant contribution. He thus meets Wikipedia notability standards in my view. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 25 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 consensus. Sandstein 09:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd (film)[edit]

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

The article does not qualify per WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rotten tomatoes has 2 critics reviews: the Austin Chronicle here and Internet Reviews here. For searches, the original title of the film was The Ugly Kid which not surprisingly they changed to Lloyd. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 reviews is just not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's a substantive 2* (out of 4) review from the Stockton Record [11]. I note that the film also shows up on a number of foreign language movie sites, although the reviews I've looked at so far seem to be very brief. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:46, 25 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 International Student Festival in Trondheim. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISFiT 2013[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge this article about one year of the recurring event into the article about the event, International Student Festival in Trondheim. The 2009 festival is already a subsection of the main article, the 2013 festival could also be a subsection. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 25 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 International Student Festival in Trondheim. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISFiT 2011[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge this article about one year of the recurring event into the article about the event, International Student Festival in Trondheim. The 2009 festival is already a subsection of the main article, the 2011 festival could also be a subsection. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 25 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 09:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alterra Mountain Company[edit]

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

Some of the resorts are notable; that does not mean the holding company is. It might on the other hand be possible to merge the resort articles into sections here, DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Maybe putting some of the less notable resorts here and I think it can serve as gaining information about the management of the resorts and could be helpful ★BrandonALF★ ^talk ^edits 22:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, articles like Henry Crown and Company are way smaller and hold less purtpose and it owqns compnies so many peoiple don't really care about itn as ★BrandonALF★ ^talk ^edits 22:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, notability is not inherited. There are no indications of notability for the company itself although perhaps some of the resorts may be. References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Individual resorts have articles and this is sufficient. Wikipedia is not a place for the group's promotional materials, such as "Alterra Mountain Company is budgeting $555 million over the next 5 years to improve there 12 mountain destinations"! etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 30 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KSL Capital Partners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

They may or may not be notable as distinct from their holdings, but if they are the owner, not just one of many investors, it might be possible to merge the material into here. I think this type of solution for business firms might be a good way of going forward. If the separate articles are redirects, not articles, we won't be serving as a way to get them highly ranked in Google DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Henry Crown and Company is an article then this can be because this is larger and more in depth. Besides there's potential for the article. ★BrandonALF★ ^talk ^edits 22:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate Spam, zero indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or corporate web pages. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. Article fails WP:SPIP. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP, WP:NOT. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorv Om[edit]

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

Not notable. The award mentioned in [12] doesn't appear to be the type whose winners are inherently notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India is the largest News website in India and an article in this newspaper shows the value of the award.Still, I will add more reference regarding the award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashirahmad371 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed that this fails WP:GNG. The award does not make this person inherently notable as the nom stated and as of my review of the article it hasn't been improved to a point where it would pass the guideline. -- Dane ^talk 04:53, 27 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. Based on the unrebutted sources found by 104.163.147.121. Sandstein 09:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Sierra (artist)[edit]

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

I went into this just trying to remove the puffery, and realized that this has significant COI, as Stephen Crowe, who drew the portrait of Sierra, was himself writing his own page, which I have also nominated for deletion. Stephen Crowe (composer). In this case, the claims for WP:Artist rest on the award of the Manor Art Prize, and the exhibition that comes with it. And the Frieze review of the exhibition. There are no other significant reviews. The "Monographs" are all exhibition catalogs. I note that the page links to the list of winners of Manor Art Prize on de.wiki [13], and maybe 20% of them have pages on de wiki. I don't think it passes muster. Theredproject (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the opposition by some other editors to a few of the other Afds nominated by Theredproject (in good faith), I'm giving another week for discussions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The prize and solo exhibition grants passing WP:CREATIVE easily. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found something good in a search too may times to say Delete. A mention in this newspaper. This article talks about him being approached by the Kunstmuseum Bern. I then switched to searching with his name and "kunst". Bingo. Nice in-depth review here. Kunst Bulletin here has a lot of in-depth kunst criticism. Tagblatt has more in-depth kunstler writing. As they say, "Der Künstler spricht von Galgenhumor", and also he is a "schweizerisch-chilenischer Doppelbürger". I am pretty sure that is Austrian or German for he is notable now.104.163.147.121 (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

here is another in Schweitzer Illustriete, where they use the word "Fingerfertigkeit", which sounds impressive.104.163.147.121 (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this page appears to be a smaller gallery or exhibition, and it refers to him as "ausgebildeter Musiker" and am "autodidaktisch beigebracht", which sounds like an outside musician and a self taught beige something. Seriously though, TheRedProject's nominations are excellent. This one slipped by because all the coverage is in Austrian or German or Swiss German, or whatever it is. The artist is notable per the many in-depth independent sources in a foreign language.104.163.147.121 (talk) 07:20, 28 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! 07:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never Be the Same Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Improperly recreated article whose AfD was closed two weeks ago (10 March 2018) as "Move to draft" [14]. Still fails WP:NTOUR, and violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in the original AfD (which closed 12 days before this article was recreated) for their current opinion: @Drmies, Richard3120, Narky Blert, BD2412, Cornerstonepicker, and Melodies1917:. Pinging closer Spartaz as well. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My vote last time round was for draftify or userfy as WP:TOOSOON. Well, it's still WP:TOOSOON. The fact that a couple of concerts have now taken place doesn't change that. There is still no WP:RS coverage of the tour. My vote this time is either for draftify again; or even for delete for not paying attention to the WP:POLICY-based reasons put forward in the previous discussion (which were pretty much unanimous) and for being a nuisance. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, recording what has been reliably and independently said to have happened, not a directory of and advertisement for upcoming gigs. I don't care how famous the performer is. Narky Blert (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator: Could redirect (to Camila Cabello) and full-protect the redirect, to prevent the article's re-creation. Softlavender (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As before. And User:IonutB56 really needs to engage in conversation here. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies, for the sake of the closing admin, could you clarify that by giving a bolded !vote? Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete--for the simple reason that most tours are not notable per NTOUR, so saving a draft is needless. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: Please also note these four redirects created by IonutB56, the article creator and also a brand-new account and SPA: User:Never Be the Same Tour, Never Be the Same Tour (Camila Cabello Tour), Never Be the Same Tour (2018), Never Be the Same Tour. ←with an added period. Something smells ... wrong. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- CU had nothing exciting to offer, though User:IonutB56 needs to be pointed out that whole "log in while editing" thing. Gotta run. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding nose. I smell WP:FANCRUFT in all those redirects. Narky Blert (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article which is the subject of this discussion gets deleted, then any and every link-in should be WP:G8ed. Narky Blert (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/delete On the last nomination I was a bit indifferent, because there were other tour articles created long before their start date--I named Taylor Swift's Reputation Stadium Tour as the example. This tour begins early next month, but yes, it does lack information; I say delete this for now and keep the Draft. Melodies1917 (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Well now is long and full of unsourced content. The one I edited had less content but properly sourced. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per "Melodies1917". Raritydash (talk) 06:34, 2 April 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! 07:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CheapOair[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable travel company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is routine notices, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions.

Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. For AfDs related to the same company, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fareportal and OneTravel (2nd nomination). Issues with this page are comparable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs are strong. The parent company fareportal was deleted 7 years ago but based upon those mixed in here would likely be OK for inclusion now, the sister company onetravel was recently deleted for looking like an advert. Anyway keep from me. Szzuk (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on Fareportal happened this month (March 2018), not 7 years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fareportal. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I was looking at the first afd for onetravel, too many pages open. Szzuk (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's two cited sources that unimpeachably meet WP:RS: (a) The Fortune article "Sam Jain's CheapOair is really taking off" and (b) the Bloomberg Businessweek article "This Travel-Booking Website Loves It When You Call". There's also a Barron's article that is at least half about the company's business model: "How To Cancel Your Flight: These Details Matter" [15]. A number of these magazines cite the company as #5 in the industry and these are the types of magazines that fact-check their work. #10 in the US fare-booking industry probably doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article but #5 likely does. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Fortune piece is an article written by the founder to promote his business: "Sam Jain's CheapOair is really taking off", "His story:..." The editorial intro is 1 paragraph. The Bloomberg BusinessWeek opens with "You know the four largest online travel agents: Priceline, Expedia, Orbitz, and Travelocity. The fifth? It’s a privately held website with an old-school strategy: live human travel agents available via phone or Web chat. You’ve never heard of it?" (emphasis mine). "Never heard" suggests to me a marginally notable business, promotional articles on which we should not accept. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry but that's not a fair portrayal of the notability significance of the two pieces. The How I Got Started column was and is a regular column in Fortune written by Dinah Eng. Fortune is a reliable source - one that we can be reasonably confident that does its fact-checking, even before printing an article written in the first-person singular; and that you can't buy your way into. As you point out, only the first paragraph is independent but that's more than a passing mention - it's a short but complete description of the business and its market standing. As for the Bloomberg BusinessWeek article, the same applies - Bloomberg Businessweek is a major business publication that we can be fairly sure is reliable and independent. I don't think that anyone can seriously suggest that you can buy a promotional article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek any more easily than in the New York Times. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sole independent high-quality source is Bloomberg. The rest are interviews, PR releases, and low quality sources. Amenable to change my !vote on better sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. I disagree that the Bloomberg is a solid source too since it extensively relies on quotations from company executives - essentially the article makes a statement to "set up" the quotation - this is not a good sign of intellectually independent content. References fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've largely rewritten the article over the last week or so. Please take a fresh look. I've added one further cite, to Forbes (magazine) that is partly about FarePortal and partly about CheapOair. Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:19, 1 April 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! 07:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kajiya Productions[edit]

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

Just 4 links at Google News. Seems like it doesn't meet notability criteria. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator), created as there are enough references throughout Wikipedia mentioning the subject (with references). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources that exist are all interviews, which, while fine on their own, do not prove notability when they are the ONLY sources available._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alexander O. Smith unless/until more sources pop up and indicate notability. --Alexandra IDV^talk 11:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was leaning toward merge but I actually think it passes notability even as a stub. I'm going to have to ask Bbarmadillo to specify *which* notability criterion it "seems like it doesn't meet". Axem Titanium (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, as any information that would indicate the significance of the company is ultimately based on interviews, and even then it is lacking. Per NCORP "Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In business setting, frequent primary sources include: corporate annual or financial reports, proxy statements, memoirs or interviews by executives". Just not enough secondary sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:15, 29 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. Michig (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Bentley[edit]

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

Lots of sources but they are either independent but not reliable or vice versa. Interviews dont count anyway. None of the awards past muster either being either scene or not well known &/or significant. Therefore fails pornbio and gng. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources in the article (and online) more specifically [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26], A good majority of the sources in that article should be removed but what I've listed are all absolutely fine and as such she clearly meets GNG (Just to add interviews are also fine and are generally used on thousands of articles if text is present). –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What Davey2010 said. Bogger (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: the sources offered above are insufficient; they are of tabloid variety (i.e. therealpornwikileaks.com, nydailynews.com), blogs (peta.org.uk/blog) and / or soundbites from the subject, such as "porn questions answered by professionals: tanya-tate-joybear", etc. This is insufficient for a BLP, as an NPOV article cannot be built from such sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources like Cosmopolitan (which are a part of Hearst Digital Media), New York Daily News, Huffington Post, Contactmusic.com, Metro, Penthouse Magazine and PETA which are reliable sources, One can easily build an article with the sources here, The only problematic source is "Therealpornwikileaks" which realistically should be replaced however as demonstrated this BLP clearly meets GNG or most certainly BASIC by a long mile. –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. I don't have any particular issue specifically with tabloid sources and it seems there is enough overall, coupled with a reasonable amount of daily article views, to suggest there is notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm feeling a difference in the exclusion criteria of articles about pornstars. Several articles are being saved because existis a serie of trivial statements that do not characterize notoriety (minor mainstream media appearances, DJ work, suspicions intervils, etc). Excluding these trivial statements, there is no difference between the article in question and this Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Melissa Lauren. Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or deleted in this case) is not a valid reason for deletion, The sources aren't trivial and you would know that if you actually clicked on them. –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Davey2010 - Excellent sourcing available and could be improved. -- Dane ^talk 04:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Notable per Cosmopolitan_(magazine), New_York_Daily_News, and the pile of newspapers magazines and other WP:RS at Google News search "Samantha Bentley". Reliable, respected, mainstream publications that are definitely not tabloids. Less important contributing "points" for Penthouse_(magazine) Pet of the month, Game of Thrones, assorted awards, and any sources that actually are tabloids. Just for laughs, and to drive home how widespread the coverage is, I'll cite the passing mention at SpaceNews - "a print and digital publication that covers business and political news in the space and satellite industry".[27]
Given the level of WP:GNG sourcing, I don't see how there would even be a deletion discussion if she had worked in any other film genre. Alsee (talk) 06:02, 30 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 09:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blow Job (cocktail)[edit]

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

There are lots of sources about what this is and how to make it. The only sentence in the article that goes beyond WP:NOTHOWTO is unsourced (although the sources that are in the article are both rather poor). Not seeing a stand-alone article here. Notability is also an issue given the sources I'm seeing are basically brief mentions or instructions rather than in-depth coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no notability. Recipes being available as sources does not mean it deserves an article. Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of the articles at List of cocktails have a similar level of coverage. It is hard to know whether to nominate those, or whether the one poor ref here is sufficient. Szzuk (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do delete shit like Havana Cooler. I can't imagine someone complaining about a prod or bold redirect. It's a recipe, not something with actual coverage. Perhaps that list can be converted to a table/tables: columns for name, ingredients, notes, and sources, merging the stubs into it. Reywas92^Talk 05:04, 30 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 09:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Milton Lee[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Per the delete found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wesley Edmonds, these 10 individuals are collectively known for being founding members of a fraternity, but there is no evidence that any is notable on his own. Each article is sourced only to non-independent sources connected directly to the fraternity with little substantive coverage outside of that found in searches. Relevant information covering the founding can be found at or expanded to Kappa Alpha Psi, but the separate articles for the ten are not notable. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants @Power~enwiki:, @AuthorAuthor:, @Acnetj:, @Deathlibrarian:. Reywas92^Talk 02:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all being one of ten founding members of a fraternity is not a claim of notability, and there's nothing else. None of these articles offer anything supporting notability beyond frat histories. I'm dismayed this has existed in this form for nearly a decade. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer that the names not redirect to the fraternity, though, very reluctantly, I would not object to such a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - There is no wikipedia protocol establishing fraternity founders as auto notable. Aas above, same logic for deleting this article should be applied to all these. A note on the wiki pages for the fraternities should be enough. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 25 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 Editorial solution required. Consensus, such as it is, is that this can and should be fixed by merging and/or redirecting as appropriate. A deletion discussion is not required for this. Sandstein 09:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lewiston, New York[edit]

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

Article is an almost total duplicate of Lewiston (village), New York. I am not sure how this came about and though some editors are aware of this problem that has lasted for a couple of years, no one seems to want to take action and I honestly have no clue what is the best thing to do here. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:49, 24 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replace Lewiston, New York with Lewiston (town), New York and fix one link that would become circular. From a cursory perusal, the only differences between Lewiston and Lewiston (village), New York is (1) the latter has a link to a more complete List of people from Lewiston, New York than the people listed in the former, and (2) it doesn't have a ref. label error. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Umm, Gene93k seems to be slightly mixed up, or is going on about something else, the likely unresolvable issue of overlap between village and town. The current Lewiston, New York article is about the village, seems to duplicate Lewiston (village), New York. However closely-related is the town article, it must be somewhat different. Certainly the two village articles should be merged/redirected to just one. Whenever I come across duplicate articles, I seek to redirect the newer one to the older one (sometimes necessitating an article move or two, to get the right one into intended place). Here they both were created back in 2004 (ancient history!) so I don't know which one's edit history is more important to preserve in the continuing article. Whatever. You can just edit to correct a duplication (though perhaps you have to request a technical move or two at wp:RM); an AFD is not necessary. It's a different issue if someone wants to say the village and town articles should be merged. --Doncram (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not the first time I've seen US town/village pairs, which are separate entities, e.g. Athens (village), New York and Athens, New York, Waterloo, New York (town) and Waterloo, New York (village). The town is the primary topic, so it should be moved to simply Lewiston. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. The List of people from Lewiston, Maine is also linked from the town article, so it should be deleted from the village. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 26 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.