< 22 May	24 May >

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Kathrin Brömmel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Merge the content to Mario Götze and leave a redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for subject failing WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR. Negative towards merging, as well, because there is no need for a description about her in "Mario Götze" more detailed than it already is, i.e. "German lingerie model." -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having had a relationship with someone who is notable doesn't make her notable. A line in Gotze's biography, if relevant, is more than enough. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 18:41, 25 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna-Be Angel[edit]

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

Barely any information and no sources Lemonpasta (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this wanna-be article about a subject that fails WP:NSONG. -The Gnome (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No references, and a search only turned up database entries, lyric sites, and Youtube videos. Fails WP:NSONG for a stand-alone article. Blue Riband► 13:42, 25 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2014[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 and unsourced Hhkohh (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR/SYNTH/GNG/LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT pick one --Quek157 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and all other reasons by nom and Quek157. Ajf773. Ajf773 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2014_Myanmar_National_League as it's valid information that should be kept somewhere. SportingFlyer talk 21:18, 25 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2015[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 and unsourced Hhkohh (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR/SYNTH/GNG/LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT pick one --Quek157 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of these. These lists are what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Pburka (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and all other reasons by nom and Quek157. Ajf773. Ajf773 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 24 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2017[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 Hhkohh (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR/SYNTH/GNG/LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT pick one --Quek157 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~The list was started by a blocked sockmaster which the concern was adding unsoucred material.~~ (edit: so far no SPI was started for linking Vilnae867 and Modernrocker4 00:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)) Unlike other big league which had a newspaper column dedicated to transfer market and have a page of transfer table, it seem in Myanmar, there is lack of such secondary source. The current state of the list was mostly citing primary source such as Yadanarbon F.C. and Ygn Utd. (Yangon United). Matthew_hk t c 23:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and all other reasons by nom and Quek157. Ajf773. Ajf773 (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before the tsunami hits the beach. -The Gnome (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 24 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2017[edit]

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

Unsourced and same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 Hhkohh (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR/SYNTH/GNG/LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT pick one , i prod this but declined just to note--Quek157 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and all other reasons by nom and Quek157. Ajf773. Ajf773 (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list was started by a blocked sockmaster which the concern was adding unsoucred material. Unlike other big league which had a newspaper column dedicated to transfer market and have a page of transfer table, it seem in Myanmar, there is lack of such secondary source. (copying my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2017) Matthew_hk t c 06:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before the tsunami hits the beach. -The Gnome (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 24 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers winter 2016[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 Hhkohh (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR/SYNTH/GNG/LISTCRUFT/FANCRUFT pick one I proded but declined saying no consensus per afd --Quek157 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and all other reasons by nom and Quek157. Ajf773 (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before the tsunami hits the beach. -The Gnome (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 24 May 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. The target page (a redirect, at the time the AfD was created) was deleted as ((db-move)). I believe this AfD was created by mistake. Reh man 03:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Our Necks[edit]

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

no context Lemonpasta (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the original requester, I'm not sure what you mean by "no context". I asked for this redirect to be deleted so that the actual article (Up to our Necks) could be moved to its proper capitalization, per the db-move template. Is there some reason this needs discussion? -Dewelar (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The contested page is a redirect. It can and should be improved. The reason provided in the nomination is unclear. What "context" do we expect from a redirect? -The Gnome (talk) 07:34, 24 May 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. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dorjee K Thongun[edit]

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

Film directors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Seemingly, the subject has directed several films and documentaries but none of them is notable (at least by WP standards). The page claim the subject has received a couple of awards but I was unable to verify them via RS. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Therefore I don't see any significance yet. Saqib (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:05, 23 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Shell Games[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Black Shell Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable video game developer failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources (WP:VRS), such as WP:VG/RS. Tagged with GNG concern, OR and PROMO since 2015. The sources in the article (besides direct links to "controversy") are almost all about SanctuaryRPG, being a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. In fact, this game is pretty much all the article talks about. I see lots of search hits for various directory entries and a bunch of forum-based controversy for the parent company, but nothing in-depth or covered by reliable sources. The author's only significant edits are the creation of this article and Dungeon Souls, also by the same publisher. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, run-of-the-mill company going about their business. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion or Yellow Pages. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2018. Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demetries A. Grimes[edit]

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

This biography doesn't meet WP:NPOL. The coverage of him in RS is about his campaign. This page should be redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2018 until/unless he wins the general election and becomes a member of the House. Marquardtika (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct, per nom. At this time not notable and reads like a press release, hoping to get votes. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for US congress are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete as it's a flagrant press release at this time and wouldn't pass WP:GNG anyways. SportingFlyer talk 06:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NPOLITICIAN. Memo to interested editors: Save the text. It may be, may it be, WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a redirect would also be acceptable, but we need to delete this page first and then recreate as a redirect from the redlink if desired, because we do not want to hold this blatantly advertorial and improperly formatted mess in the edit history. As always, candidates do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — he has to win the election and thereby hold the office to become notable as a politician, and otherwise qualifies to have an article only if he can demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons. But while this makes claims of preexisting notability under WP:NMILITARY, it fails to reference them properly — and even if he can be properly referenced over NMILITARY and/or wins the election in November, the article still won't get to look or sound like this. So no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, and/or if a proper encyclopedia article, written in a neutral tone and properly sourcing his notability as a military man, can be recreated — but this as written is so utterly unacceptable that even if the latter condition holds true it still requires the blow it up and start over treatment. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NPOL and fails GNG. run-of-the-MILL local/regional news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 29 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Franchise in Pakistan[edit]

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

I don't see any encyclopedic value here. Wikipedia is not a directory. Saqib (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, delete, but I could see a decent concept for an article here. If the author were to expand and include any circumstances that make the operation of any specific franchise(s) unusual in Pakistan, controversies about their existence, etc, you'd have a reasonable article. Strikerforce^Talk 22:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable list and WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pakistan is more or less an open economy (see Economy of Pakistan), so there are tons of international business operating in the county. This seems to fail NLIST and NDIR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per norms Heshiv (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Uzbekistan national basketball team. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vyacheslav Denisov[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uzbekistan national basketball team, though the representation of his nation in FIBA event is nothing to sneer at. I wasn't around for any discussion that may have happened about the guidelines for WP:BASKETBALL, so I don't know if the subject was brought up that FIBA competitions perhaps ought to meet the guidelines. Strikerforce^Talk 23:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a team the subject does not compete for anymore is not useful at all. @Strikerforce Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the page to which the redirect is proposed has an existing section for past rosters, it's not inconceivable. Said section would need expanded to include Denisov, but it's a logical redirect, IMO, @Sportsfan 1234. Strikerforce^Talk 23:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uzbekistan national basketball team. Not a ton of sources (at least in English, my Uzbek isn't that great), but he has competed at FIBA events, so I think a redirect is the best option here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our very broad notability criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 26 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hits 93 Toronto[edit]

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

Semi-advertorial article about an internet radio stream, referenced almost entirely to its own self-published content about itself rather than to reliable source coverage -- even the few sources that are independent of it are still blogs or user-generated discussion forums, not real notability-supporting media. As always, every internet radio stream that exists at all does not get an automatic free pass over WP:NMEDIA just because its own self-published web presence technically verifies that it exists -- it would have to clear WP:GNG on the basis of reliable source coverage in media for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It ain't a radio station broadcasting anything over an FM station, and this entire article reads like fanfiction that even the most fervent radio fan wouldn't care about from a real licensed radio station. Nate • (chatter) 20:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but with a comment that this article is better written than a good number of licensed AM/FM radio station articles on Wikipedia. Much of it is purely promotional, yes, but it's informative. Strikerforce^Talk 22:27, 23 May 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. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pride High[edit]

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

No evidence this independent comic meets notability criteria. Kelly ^hi! 23:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:23, 23 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HCA Midwest Division[edit]

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

No particular reason to have a separate article about a regional subsidiary. Zigzig20s (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this corporate brochure trying to rise to the level of a Wikipedia article. Without sources or much care, either. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reasoning is sound. Natureium (talk) 18:02, 25 May 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GetAmped2[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. All current sources are primary (official sites, press releases, and primary industry publications) or unreliable (MMO Huts). I looked for WP:VG/RS-approved reliable sources using the Reliable and Situational custom Google searches and found a handful of very trivial mentions and more press releases. This game does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. (Note: I have also nominated GetAmped for the same reason.) Woodroar (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CyberStep. None of the sources I identified in the context of the discussion for the first game really indicate the significance of its sequel. --Izno (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 23 May 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. WP:REFUND applies. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mila Chernikova[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician who has no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable sourcing to carry an article per WP:GNG. The references here are an online music store, a PR/streaming site and YouTube (as well as two invalid WP:CIRCULAR references to other Wikipedia articles which I've already stripped), and a contextless linkfarm of external links to primary source profiles on PR sites that aren't doing a damn thing to boost her passage of GNG either. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and even less to have an article that's written this way -- she has to actually accomplish something that passes a notability criterion, and have reliable source coverage in media to support it, but nothing here meets either of those conditions at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with certainty on account of subject not meeting WP:NMODEL and WP:NSINGER but with sadness on account of my admiration for people with disabilities who fight on in life. Lack of sources, as per search, confirms lack of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Dane[edit]

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

Was deprodded without explanation, and the only addition of a link to the publishing house website. Can't find any in-depth coverage of this author, his books, or the publishing company. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At this point. Hopefully one day I see his name here. Just has not reached that point yet for encyclopedic inclusion. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO for a novelist with 2 genre novels books published by Amazon.com in 2016. No secondary sourcing or indication of notability on page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the sources are either basically adds for his work or his own website. Nothing coming even close to showing notability. Not all published novelists are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Ravens[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with a couple of WP:NOTNEWS local announcements of the owner of the semi-pro team hoping to one day establish a team with a home arena. It never happened and therefore has no presumed notability per WP:NORG or WP:NSPORTS. Completely unverifiable for anything beyond that. Only other coverage was a couple of mentions that "so-and-so AIF team beat the SC Ravens by..." type articles (WP:ROUTINE). Yosemiter (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the news articles I can find talk about how the team hasn't done anything yet and is still forming. Sometimes we have articles about organizations that are in process of startup, but they are an exception. I see no reason to make an exception here. Should they achieve notability in the future, we can re-create the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:42, 24 May 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! 04:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Eve (exhibition)[edit]

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

This is an article about an art exhibition that took place over a little less than two months in 1992. Notability isn't inherited, so the exhibition is not notable simply because of the works that were displayed. There was a notability concern as long ago as 2008 and I see no evidence that the General Notability Guideline has been met. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The exhibition is listed in several catalogues of the various artists involved. The list of artists is pretty stellar indeed, and it was evidently a major show. There will certainly be significant coverage in terms of reviews in Japanese, and the article should not be deleted without a search being done by a Japanese speaker. It was in fact called "The Tenth Anniversary Exhibition: Adam and Eve" in English, so it is not surprising if earlier searches failed to find anything. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bar is way, way higher than it was when the article was created. The General Notability Guideline applies. All the mentions out there are name checks in non-independent sources, and when something is described as a major international exhibition there really should be international coverage of it. This was a promotional puff piece when it was created and the article would be totally unsourced if the WP:COATRACK "biblical background" section was removed. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete: This has only a tiny mention on the website of the museum: MOMA, Saitama, which includes the name of the exhibition: 開館10周年記念展アダムとイヴ and the dates ［1992.10.10-1992.12.06]. The museum has a Japanese WP entry, which does not mention this exhibition. All in all it seems very marginal. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may have been a significant and artistically important even of an exhibition but sources that indicate so are lacking. Therefore, we are obliged to decide on account of lack of sources. An editor wrote above that "it was evidently a major show" but where's the evidence? -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 24 May 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 University of Paris#1970: Division. S elective merge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbonne name dispute[edit]

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

Complete original research. There are plenty of sources, but none except one short article is dealing with a dispute about the name Sorbonne. This is more like a blog article by a user. --Xuo Tran (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Paris#1970: Division and improve section there. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reputable and verifiable sources pointing to official legal documents and trademark registration notices, as well as to published articles in french well established and reputable newspapers.MapcheckerParis (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MapcheckerParis is the creator of the article and has contributed mostly on this subject so far. -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if as much people as possible get involved into deciding the fate of the article.MapcheckerParis (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of Paris on account of subject lacking significance. Otherwise, Delete, per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are the Sorbonne-related articles nominated for deletion:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 39 citations are not enough? Yes, some are duplicates, but still... Clean up and merge. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack N. Stock, I reformulated my text. There are plenty of sources, but none except one short article is dealing with a dispute about the name Sorbonne. It is complete original research. --Xuo Tran (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of citations alone does not translate into inclusion, Jack N. Stock. The sources have to be reliable, and they have to support the notion that the subject is notable, as Wikipedia defines notability. If they do not meet these criteria, it doesn't matter how many they are. In any case, generally more than one source is demanded, but too many are considered overkill. -The Gnome (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more of the WP:UNDERKILL class of Wikipedians. Nonetheless, I agree that 46 citations might be going too far! The article needs to be abbreviated to remove any WP:OR and resolve WP:UNDUE, then merged. As a section in an article, the topic would not need to satisfy WP:N to the same extent as a standalone article. Blind Freddy can see it passes WP:V. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MapcheckerParis that this should be merged with Sorbonne, which hilariously has a banner that it requires more sources for verification. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are three press articles (two from Libération and one from Nouvelobs). I've added a fourth from LeParisien (http://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/la-marque-sorbonne-va-etre-partagee-27-02-2010-829973.php). MapcheckerParis (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into Sorbonne sounds ok.MapcheckerParis (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references to blogs of the french newspaper Le Monde (the one that specializes in University stories) and the french magazine NouvelObs. They give an idea of how the story was being portrayed in the press at the time. I have also added the Larrouturou report to the French Minister of Higher education, that explicitly addresses the conflict (in page 12 and annex 11.2). MapcheckerParis (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In all the sources of the article, only one [1] is talking about a dispute. The other ones are only talking about a sharing, or are simple references. --Xuo Tran (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to read again. The full references are verifiable by anyone (in French). I include below the relevant quotes and an English summary. I add the capital letters for clarity.MapcheckerParis (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Libération newspaper: "La Sorbonne, marque déposée ?[edit]

The city of Paris, "the most offended", denounces the "ARMED TAKEOVER" (of the name). Supported by the Ile de France region, it then THREATENED TO NOT VOTE THE STATUTES OF A PRES WANTING TO HIJACK A NAME-SYMBOL OF THE CAPITAL, COMMON HERITAGE OF ALL PARISIANS [...] "THE CONTROVERSY ILLUSTRATES the confusion of parisian university landscape".

"Mais la plus remontée était probablement la ville de Paris. Propriétaire du bâtiment de la Sorbonne et de la marque Paris-Sorbonne, elle a dénoncé le coup de force. Soutenue par la région Ile-de-France, elle a alors menacé de ne pas voter les statuts d’un Pres qui voulait accaparer un nom-symbole de la capitale, l’héritage commun de tous les Parisiens. Tout s’est finalement bien terminé. Les trois présidents ont tempéré : ils ont baptisé leur Pres «Sorbonne universités», ce qui a satisfait tout le monde. Car si personne ne peut s’approprier le mot seul «Sorbonne», chacun peut l’inclure dans son nom.

La polémique illustre la confusion du paysage universitaire parisien"

2. Newspaper Le Monde's blog on universities: "Valérie Pécresse, "mère fouettard" des présidents d'université parisiens"[edit]

"But the guns were not yet put away" [...] The Minister of Higher education "SHARPLY REMINDS" to the President of Paris 2, (then) member of Sorbonne Universités and right after he describes the estate projects of Sorbonne Universités, that Sorbonne (the single word) is not a trademark and ALL parisian merger projects can take that name, to the delight of the president of Paris 1 [...] "Despite the OBVIOUS TENSION, parisian universities can see life with optimism [...]"

"Mais les flingues n’étaient pas pour autant rangés. Quelques minutes plus tard, après la présentation de Louis Vogel, président de Paris-II, des projets immobiliers de Sorbonne universités, la ministre a rappelé sèchement à l’intéressé, devant un Jean-Claude Colliard, président de Paris-I Panthéon-Sorbonne, aux anges, que « le mot « Sorbonne » n’est pas une marque déposée et que tous les regroupements parisiens peuvent prendre ce nom… »

Malgré la tension palpable, les universités parisiennes peuvent voir la vie un peu plus en rose pour les prochaines années. "

3. Larrouturou report to the french Minister of Higher Education (page 12)[edit]

"The three Universities have chosen to name the PRES "La Sorbonne" and continue to communicate using that name, EVEN THOUGH THIS CHOICE HAS TRIGGERED FIERCE PROTESTS FROM SEVERAL OTHER UNIVERSITIES AND THAT THE STATE AND THE CITY OF PARIS (OWNERS OF THE SORBONNE BUILDING) HAVE EXPRESSED IN WRITING THEIR DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS CHOICE."

"Enfin, les trois universités ont choisi d’appeler le PRES « La Sorbonne » et continuent de communiquer en utilisant ce nom, alors même que ce choix a provoqué de vives protestations de plusieurs autres universités et que l’État et la Ville de Paris (propriétaire du bâtiment Sorbonne) ont exprimé par écrit leur désaccord avec ce choix. "

4. Larrouturou report to the french Minister of Higher Education (annex 11.2)[edit]

"On their side, the universities Paris 2, Paris 4 and Paris 6 have registered the statutes of an association governed by the law of 1901, named "La Sorbonne", WHICH HAS TRIGGERED AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF PROTESTATION BY THE OTHER THREE UNIVERSITIES OPERATING IN THE SORBONNE BUILDING, AND A LETTER FROM THE CITY OF PARIS DEMANDING TO THE UNIVERSITIES "IN THE NAME OF THE MAYOR OF PARIS, TO USE THE NAME "SORBONNE" IN A CONCERTED WAY AMONG INSTITUTIONS AND WITH OUR AGREEMENT AS OWNER OF THE BUILDING", AND A LETTER FROM THE RECTOR OF THE ACADEMY OF PARIS IN THE SAME DIRECTION".

"De leur côté, les universités Paris 2, Paris 4 et Paris 6 ont déposé les statuts d’une Association régie par la loi de 1901 nommée « La Sorbonne », ce qui a provoqué un communiqué de protestation des trois autres universités occupant des locaux en Sorbonne, et une lettre de la Ville de Paris demandant aux universités « au nom du Maire de Paris, d’utiliser le nom « Sorbonne » de manière concertée entre établissements et avec notre accord de propriétaire du bâtiment », et une lettre du recteur de l’académie de Paris allant dans le même sens."

5. Newspaper Libération : "Les facs s'arrachent le nom Sorbonne"[edit]

"The city of Paris and the Ile de France region have just THREATENED TO NOT VOTE the statutes of the new PRES gathering three parisian universities IF THEY PERSIST IN WANTING TO NAME IT SORBONNE. A compromise was found in extremis."

"La Ville de Paris et la région Ile-de-France viennent ainsi de menacer de ne pas voter les statuts du nouveau pôle regroupant trois universités parisiennes si elles s’obstinaient à vouloir l’appeler Sorbonne. Un compromis a été trouvé in extremis."

6. Newspaper Le Parisien : "La marque Sorbonne va être partagée"[edit]

"Before 1970, there was only one (university) in Paris, and its name was Sorbonne. The universities of the capital will then have to share it. This is roughly the agreement that could be found between the university presidents, AFTER AN ATTACK FROM THE CITY OF PARIS AND THE REGION. Both institutions HAD THREATENED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WEEK TO REJECT THE MERGING BETWEEN PARIS 2, PARIS 4 AND PARIS 6, IF THEY TOOK OVER THE NAME SORBONNE". "But they can ALL include the word in their name", has reminded yesterday the Paris rectorat. "ALL of the universities of Paris are the inheritors (of Sorbonne)". THIS CONFLICT TAKES PLACE in the middle of the process of bringing closer together universities and grandes écoles in Paris."

"Avant 1970, il n'en existait qu'une à Paris… et elle s'appelait Sorbonne. Les universités de la capitale vont donc devoir le partager. C'est à peu près cet accord qui a pu être trouvé entre les présidents d'université, à la suite d'une attaque de la Ville de Paris et de la région. Les deux institutions avaient menacé en début de semaine de refuser l'union entre Paris-II, Paris-IV et Paris-VI, si ces dernières s'appropriaient le nom de Sorbonne. « Mais toutes peuvent inclure dans leur nom le mot Sorbonne, a rappelé hier le rectorat de Paris. Toutes les universités de Paris en sont héritières. » Ce conflit intervient en pleine période de rapprochement des universités et grandes écoles parisiennes à Paris."

7. Magazine Le Nouvel Obs' blog on education: "bataille de chiffoniers autour de la marque Sorbonne"[edit]

"By that time, no one has yet registered the simple expression "La Sorbonne". In november 2007 it's done by Paris 4, and this in a record of 22 (intellectual property) classes, wich blocks its exploitation in every possible area. Then [...] Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne gets irritated at last, offended by the implantation of its rival Paris 4 at Abu Dhabi. As a worthy law faculty, it registers 13 trademarks all of a sudden"[...] The next episode of the saga? A "RAG AND BONE MEN" FIGHT, that has started, to know who will really have the right to use the brand that is now claimed not only by four or five universities, but also by the PRES wanting to get the precious label "excellency campus"".

"A ce stade, personne n'a encore protégé l'expression toute simple « La Sorbonne ». En novembre 2007 c'est fait par Paris IV, et ceci dans un nouveau record de 22 classes, ce qui vérouille l'exploitation dans tous les secteurs possibles.

Là, la prestigieuse Paris-1 Panthéon Sorbonne s'énerve enfin, ulcérée par l'implantation de sa rivale Paris IV à Abu Dhabi . En digne juriste, elle dépose 13 marques d'un coup [...] Le prochain épisode du feuilleton ? Une bataille de chiffonniers, qui a démarré, pour savoir qui aura vraiment le droit d'utiliser la marque que revendiquent maintenant non seulement quatre ou cinq universités, mais aussi des PRES désireux de décrocher le précieux label "campus d'excellence"

Thanks. Some disagreement mentioned here and there does not mean there is a major dispute as this article leads to think. --Xuo Tran (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your own opinion.MapcheckerParis (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge briefly to the suggested merge target. As far as I can make out this is essentially about a trademark dispute as to which successor university should be entitled to use the name "Sorbonne". That issue may well deserve a paragraph in the merge target, but does not deserve an article of its own. WP expects NPOV. It should set out briefly the arguments on each side and when there us an outcome what it is. WP should not be a forum for arguing out which side is right. An article with this number of citations (if they are relevant) is certainly not "original research". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 28 May 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 Pantheon-Sorbonne University. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbonne Art School[edit]

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

No notability. Xuo Tran (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – At this point why delete? Just do a Merge/Redirect to Pantheon-Sorbonne University. I can see a search based on Sorbonne Art School. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pantheon-Sorbonne University. Sources are too few for a separate article. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are the Sorbonne-related articles nominated for deletion:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is sufficient information available for a section in Pantheon-Sorbonne University. Quite a few mentions in books, no doubt plenty more in French language sources. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:40, 25 May 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 Pantheon-Sorbonne University. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbonne Publishing[edit]

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

Notability Xuo Tran (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are the Sorbonne-related articles nominated for deletion:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is difficult to research online because many results are the phrase "Sorbonne, publishing" or "Sorbonne publishing" rather than specifically referring to the university publishing house. So the Pantheon-Sorbonne University has a publishing house, like many universities; that would be appropriate section in the University's article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:54, 25 May 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 Pantheon-Sorbonne University. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbonne Law School (Ecole de Droit de la Sorbonne)[edit]

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

No notability (as such), no source. Only a department inside a university with a specific branding it seems. French Wikipedia discussion: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:%C3%89cole_de_droit_de_la_Sorbonne/Suppression Xuo Tran (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC) This is not a faculty but only a brand and an administrative division. --Xuo Tran (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is to standarize the references present in the article Sorbonne Law School, which includes "Paris law school" in a similar situation. MapcheckerParis (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are the Sorbonne-related articles nominated for deletion:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not skip this discussion and boldly merge into Pantheon-Sorbonne University? Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Summoned by bot to the RfC on the talk page and found this AfD. Agree with Jacknstock and merge with Pantheon-Sorbonne University. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 29 May 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! 05:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Himel Ashraf[edit]

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

Film/TV directors/producers are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR and producers/directors of non-notable films/ TV series is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Therefore I can't see any significance.. Saqib (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is the prominent and young film director in Bangladesh, Especially in Bengali movie and drama. He got recognition for his notable work. One movie directed by him got a huge response from the different area. He now works with his second movie with the Bangladeshi superstar Shakib Khan. Many of drama, directed by him on-air in national television and get positive responses. NC Hasive • talk • 13:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far I can see Ashraf ha produced only one notable film which is not sufficient to have a stand-alone entry on WP. What kind of recognition the subject received ? please cite some coverage here. --Saqib (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has directed one film and another one is on the way to be released. He made TV serials also. He worked with Faruki, another well known film maker in Bangladesh. In film industry, Himel is a common face now. Newspapers written about him. Sources about him and his works, listed in the article, also shows his enough notability. So, I think, it should be kept. Rafi (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafi Bin Tofa: Directed just one film so far - second movie not even begin production yet (Priyotoma) so fails to pass relevant N guideline WP:AUTHOR. He made TV serial but none is notable (at-least by WP standards) - fails WP:AUTHOR. He worked with Faruki - it does not matter here because WP:N is not inherited. You claim newspapers written about him. Provide some solid coverage here so that WP:N can be established. Sources in the BLP are not sufficient to establish WP:N and therefore this nom was made. --Saqib (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@Saqib: Lets check out what WP:AUTHOR says,

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)"

Here we can see, the person has to create a notable work (can be a film, book etc). Himel did the work. How can you claim it does not meet N guidelines?Rafi (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far I can see the subject has produced only one notable film and I don't think we create bios on directors/producers who have produced just one film. A few recent exampls: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ammad Azhar (2nd nomination) / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gokul Ramakrishnan. --Saqib (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number 3 criterion of WP:AUTHOR states
The person has CREATED or played a major role in CO-CREATING a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews
Now two question may arise. First one, are the television series(es) he directed notable? Answer is Yes, from the Bangladesh media! As these are broadcasted in Bangladesh so you might need to think from that angle. Brief part of WP:SERIAL states that too. Therefore comes to the second question. Is the film reliable? Under the general criteria stated at WP:FILM I see it too passes the notability test. So here comes the bigger unified question. Is this person really notable even after creating (OR playing a major role as assistant director) some really notable creative works? The answer is yes! So keep it. --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 05:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratyya Ghosh: First of all, there is no verification if the subject indeed produced or directed the TV series mentioned in this article so first we need to verify the claims. Second, I assume "television single dramas" are one episode dramas which are not notable unless they meet GNG. --Saqib (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you should've googled a bit before telling this. It's the duty of the article creator, deletion proposer and all those people who're commenting here! When I googled I found that there's coverage about him. Also I previously mentioned, that you might need to think from the Bangladeshi angle. Bangladesh is a country where the official language is Bangla! So maybe there's more coverage in Bangla. Anyway, I find the verifications in almost every famous Bangladesh dailies. Anyway, you may look this. Now the second one. In the article I found that he actually directed 7 Serials, which are not single dramas. --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 13:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pratyya Ghosh, what do you mean, "is the film reliable?" We don't actually care if films are reliable. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, on account of subject lacking evidence based notability. Subject fails WP:NDIRECTOR. Inclusion certainly's WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Heavyweight Championship (Los Angeles version)[edit]

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

These two articles are completely contextless lists without any introduction or reason why a 'world heavyweight championship' for wrestling in the WWII era was limited to a random city and state and why winning them was a major part of someone's career (Maryland seems completely random); I understand wrestling territories at their barest concept, but otherwise this is just a list that throws us into a list of people and explanation for their win that has zero context and paper-thin sourcing; on top of that @Diannaa: flagged this as a WP:COPYVIO from what seems to be an equally vague fanpage which seems to read as some kind of fanfiction rather than a historical record. If someone could improve this article I would definitely pull the nomination, but at this point without context, this is just a name list for championships only the most wrestling-obsessed would recognize.

Also bundled into this nom is;

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 01:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability criteria. That is my honest, non-cheating, non-theatrical, non-promotional opinion. -The Gnome (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oif the article could offer some context, it might be different, but it's simply a list of champions for an old belt. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Chowdhury[edit]

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

Film director of only one notable film is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. The article claim he subject has also directed Niyoti but I cannot verify it. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Therefore I can't see any significance, Saqib (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is the famous actor in Bangladesh. Also 41th_Bangladesh_National_Film_Awards winner director. The film directed by him Meyeti Ekhon Kothay Jabe got 4 national award. He performed at least seven hundred shows as an actor since 1984. BTW, its an mistake. He is the actor of Niyoti. NC Hasive • talk • 12:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide RS which verifies he won any award. He may have performed in many TV shows but to have a stand-alone article, the actor must have had major roles. I can't see he performed with major role in Niyoti either. --Saqib (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable actor. Many Bengali source available. --আফতাব (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in posting links to Google search results -> WP:GHITS. If there are specific references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them here. --Saqib (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film where he plays a minor role has won major awards, he was not even nominated as far as I can tell. In fact the wikipedia page on the movies does not even mention him in the cast list. I doubt he is even close to being notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails criteria from WP:NACTOR to WP:NDIRECTOR, which are the same in both Lahore and Lohāwar. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 24 May 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. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The News Mill[edit]

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

Someone give me a single decent reference covering the activities of the site.Promo-spam. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:00, 23 May 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rajkumar (actor)[edit]

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

Actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. No significant coverage of him in multiple independent sources, as far as I have been able to find, and no major roles in notable films. (If it should be kept it needs to be moved to a better title, but let's resolve the notability issue first.) bonadea contributions talk 11:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. An article on the same subject has been previously deleted as Rajkumar Thakuriya under the A7 criterion for speedy deletion. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 08:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Clearly fails criteria. No references, no care, not even birth date. -The Gnome (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Marwah[edit]

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

As per Basic criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary and reliable sources", where this subject failed to meet the basic notability criteria. The cited sources seems to be not having relevant and depth coverage to meet the notability criteria in fact some of the links seems to be the dead/non-existing. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 07:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows that the subject is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 26 May 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. Can be userfied if somebody really wants to try to improve it. Sandstein 18:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of pornographic subgenres[edit]

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

The list does not make clear the concept of subgenre, mixing confusingly categories that look like tags from pornographic sites. Much of the article does not feature RS coverage (for 10 years) and looks like copy paste from websites of the genre. Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft that has never been, and will likely never be, sourced. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. A large portion of the list is original research, while the rest is already in Category:Pornography by genre. An encyclopedic list might be able to be created, but it's clear that it requires a full rewrite with reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not clean-up. Like Zxcvbnm said, an encyclopaedic list can be created. Instead of deleting the article, first we should try to improve it. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly would not object to Draftification if you are willing to fully revamp the article. But keeping it doesn't guarantee that anything will be done; it has a high chance of returning to the status quo of the last 10 years of being ignored by editors._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:04, 29 May 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 06:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of games that Buddha would not play[edit]

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

Article is not notable enough, subject matter could theoretically be merged with the article Brahmajala Sutta, but the content would just not fit anywhere and make that article less focused. Although proposed deletion has been objected to in 2009, standards of Wikipedia have gone up a lot now, so deleting is the best option. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One line in Brahmajala Sutta (Theravada)#Majjhima Sila seems sufficient. The details in this article are excessive minutia. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is about a specific aspect in the philosophy of Buddha. It is notable because it is referenced in three different independent third party sources. Since the content is too specific to all fit in a merge article, then it should remain a separate article, because the article itself is notable. This article was already considered for deletion in 2009, and albeit wikipedia's standards have become higher in this period, this was the results of the tightening of several specific policies, but not a change in the wikipedia philosophy as a whole. I do not think the specific policies used to keep this article changed in a way that would disqualify this article now. Therefore, the precedent and WP:N are on the side of keep. Emass100 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Emass100 If you think the article is worth saving, please do the massive re-write it needs. Otherwise the one line in Brahmajala Sutta (Theravada)#Majjhima Sila will be fine. Please also salt for capitalization. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't need a massive rewrite. It is a list so it is fine the way it is. The reason for deletion has never been that this article is poorly written, which is not a usually reasoon for deletion, but that the subject is non-notable. The subject was deemed notable nine years ago as per policies that didn't change much since that time. Having this as one line within another text would mean we would lose all the information on this list from our encyclopedia. Emass100 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To state that the article cites three different independent third party sources, apart from being a phrase filled with redundancies, is also simply misleading. Let's take a look at the three sources:

Source 1 is a self-help book from a popular publisher which does not qualify as RS for this subject matter. Furthermore, the books has only three paragraphs on the subject, which are merely anecdotes rather than providing any useful reflection or facts for the article. They do, in fact, not support any of the content in the article.
Dialogues of the Buddha by T. W. Rhys-Davids is the translation from which the article is copied. This source contains some linguistic notes, but is not a secondary source: it simply translates the original Pali text.
And to make things worse, the third source does not even contain the word Buddha, and contains one brief mention of a Tibetan board game, of which the relation with the subject has not been established and would in fact be considered OR.

With regard to the deletion discussion, I have not been able to trace any 2009 discussion involving Spasemunki, so it is uncertain in what shape or to what extent any discussion took place.

The article is obviously not Wikipedia material. It is and never has been a notable subject in Buddhist studies, contains not a single reliable secondary source, and is not remotely significant enough within the field of Buddhism to be considered notable. It is waste of time for any serious reader of Wikipedia, and should be removed without delay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 2009 discussion was for a proposed deletion rather than AfD- it's on the Talk page. The list of games in the Brahmajala Sutta is mentioned in a few sources that I found without much work- here in a History of Chess, here in an article from the American Chess Bulletin and here in a book about the connection between games and human intelligence. It's also referenced in an article from Vice News on video game addiction among Buddhist monks. Again, I think it's an interesting cultural note from an era of history that there isn't a lot of information about and important to the history of chess and other games. Logically I would say that it belongs as a sub-page of the article on the Sutta if the list is too unwieldy to include in the article, but in the spirit of WP:NOTPAPER I see no reason why this shouldn't stay a keep. It's probably never going to be a huge article but I don't see the harm that you're attributing to it. --Spasemunki (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is nothing but superficial, passing mention of the subject in the sources you cite. There is already a sentence in History of board games mentioning the Buddha's description of board games, and that will suffice. No separate article required.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:One source suggests that this list might be an early mention of 'blind chess,' maybe the first in the literary record. Another points out that the list of games is duplicated in the Vinaya (here, I believe) and in other places in the Digha Nikaya. My argument has always been that there is room for expansion, and given that the Vinaya and other sections of the Digha Nikaya have their own commentaries and secondary sources, and that I found three more sources with a couple minutes with Google, I still see no reason to believe that isn't the case. The argument for deletion is that it isn't significant and that there aren't sources- it was significant enough to repeat several times in the primary source, and is mentioned by at least 4-5 sources on the history of chess or other board games that were found through Google. Sources on daily life in ancient India are hard to come by (one reason why I think it should stay), but I think there are still quite a few commentaries on the Pali suttas that aren't readily available in translation online. One of the nice things about hypertext is that you can provide detail without unduly cluttering a text... hence why I mention WP:NOTPAPER. --Spasemunki (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Pending per review per Farang Rak Tham. I've both looked over his review of the sources and done another BEFORE check. His commentary matches - regarding the 3rd, it is possible that it does have some data on the topic, but half a dozen key words that should be language neutral didn't bring anything up. Other sources are generally on controversial games about the Buddha rather than his viewpoint on games.

With regard to ChalkDrawings33: as Emass100 notes a notability dispute isn't contingent on the entry needing to be rewritten. Additionally someone !voting Keep doesn't give them any moral obligation to improve that article. More directly to the reviewing Admin Do Not Salt - nothing has happened to warrant it, and notability is the only grounds for deletion here - good sources are all that would be needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a specific part of Buddhist teaching :: Buddha refused to get into the common habit of supposed holy-men of playing games when they should have been praying or meditating. It is mentioned in the book A History of Chess. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's convenience the reference to the (original) actual source of that is here. The author cites the whole translation and then goes on to discuss two of them Nosebagbear (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is one page with the text which is the same text that Rhys Davids has translated, and one more page of analysis. I don't see how an article can be based on that. Furthermore, this source deals with the history of games, and does not contain much content pertaining to Buddhist doctrine, practice or history.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has changed since the original listing- I went ahead and incorporated citations and material from the sources that I turned up through Google books, and removed the reference to the questionable self-help book that was being cited. It now has six independent academic sources. There were also two improvement flags that had already been responded to within the text that I removed. I also added several missing categories so that the article is better integrated with related topics. This is a niche topic, but it's been of interest to historians for almost two hundred years, describes a rare window into daily life in ancient India, is factual and clearly sourced, and could potentially be expanded with additional sources that aren't readily available on the web (WP:DEADLINE). If you're !vote was to delete I'd ask you to take a second look. --Spasemunki (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spasemunki - thanks for your edits. Could you find an alternate link for the fourth source (I've marked it as dead), as it takes me to Sutta Central but then is a network error. I'm not sure if this was part of your edits. It certainly has fewer weaknesses - I just need to assess it as having now got enough strengths.

I would strongly advise the other deletes to at least have a look. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link is fixed- just a stray character on the URL. --Spasemunki (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep -- The merge nom would not do, as it would be merging the specific with the general. The suggested target probably needs to have a sentence added referring to this article. I suspect that the article still needs cleaning up as there are two items 10 and 11 relating to palm leaves. The title sounds trivial, but the content certainly is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

João Carreira[edit]

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

Delete Zero indications of notability, fails WP:BASIC. Appears to be a vanity entry for a run-of-the-mill company owner. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nom. No indication of notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dadagiri Unlimited Season 7[edit]

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

Nothing remarkably different from it's main article...Delete as a redundant fork....of Dadagiri Unlimited — F R ⁺ 15:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing in the one-line article that is not already mentioned in Dadagiri Unlimited. Retaining the title as a redirect is pointless. Sam Sailor 11:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Planet. Theirs Too.[edit]

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

No depth of coverage of this organization in any of the WP:Citation overkill - just mentions of the name, and focused on the event they organize, not the organization itself. Most are unreliable sources anyway. Searching turns up nothing substantial either. Nom'd it as WP:A7 but it was taken off by an IP editor. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - another editor has decided to re-add the speedy. Highly unlikely it will survive so no need for this to proceed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 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 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy: Understanding ISIS, The Middle East, and The Complexity of The Syrian War[edit]

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

This article is a puff piece for a non-notable book, whose only references are two reviews of another book, a paragraph here and this puffy article on some website. Note that the author of said book may not be notable either. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, library holdings is embarrassing, agree with nom's analysis of article cites (and a gsearch has brought up nothing useable). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 25 May 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 17:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandingo Massacre[edit]

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

An unremarkable movie series. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG and the awards are in minor categories Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Niche awards mostly given to promote advertisers and clients. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable award,s Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 28 May 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 17:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RBAC University Stadium[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT Hhkohh (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as original PRODder. I could not identify any in-depth reliable third-party coverage of the subject. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT, no indication the ground has gained significant third party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 14:36, 24 May 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 17:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rambhai Barni Rajabhat University Stadium[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject is not covered in-depth by any third-party reliable source, thus failing the WP:GNG. Would not be an appropriate redirect to Chanthaburi F.C., since the football club simply rented use of the stadium from the university, and neither owns nor manages it. If anything, it should be redirected to Rambhai Barni Rajabhat University, but we don't have an article on the university. Paul_012 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT, no indication the ground has gained significant third party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to English Reformation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed English Church[edit]

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

The article has never had any text, only the boxes, and I have located no source with any information about a religious body of this name : Noyster (talk), 09:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect synonym to English Reformation. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to English Reformation as a plausible search term. Leaving aside the textless status of the article, the infobox attributes don't make a lot of sense. A group that separated from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church would not be Strict Baptist. I suspect this was essentially a infobox sandbox attempt, with some of the information retained from whichever church article it was copied from initially. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wiping out an article which covers a whole denomination, per current infobox mention of 70 churches belonging to it, should not be done lightly, even though denominations can rise and fall pretty fast. This seems to be about church split off in America, not about the split in England, so redirect to English Reformation is not quite on. Is there a different article about the Reformation happening in America, which was settled by Europeans already in 1600s? There is Reformed and Presbyterian churches" article in Britannica. Searching "Reformed English Church, Virginia" yields http://loyolanotredamelib.org/php/report05/articles/pdfs/Report38Joynerp15-34.pdf, from Loyola Notre Dame, which doesn't load for me but Google snippet shows it is about "The History of the Reformed Church in Virginia 1714-1940 ... entries after 1844 in English and not transcribed." But mention of 70 churches belonging to it seems to suggest it is about a current/recent denomination. --Doncram (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I don't think there is a denomination as described in this infobox. The article you linked from the Loyola website is about Lutheran and Reformed churches, but in that context, those mean the ELCA and PC (USA), respectively (the latter has its seminary in Richmond). Both of these are much larger denominations than the infobox offers. Now, there are lots of other Presbyterian denominations, but not headquartered in Richmond, and not named "Reformed English"! Indeed, "English" is usually a keyword suggesting an Anglican church. There is a "Reformed Anglican Church", which is a reasonably large denomination (north of 100 parishes), with a parish in Richmond, but not headquartered there. We don't seem to have an article for that; note that it's not the same as what we have under the title Reformed Anglican Church, which I believe should actually be Reformation Anglican Church, and which miiight not be notable. Also, absolutely none of these churches are "Strict Baptist" as the infobox suggests (in either sense; they are not Baptists to begin with, and they do not hold closed communion). Bottom line, I'm pretty sure the denomination as described in the infobox doesn't exist at all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to English Reformation. Google books search gives results which link the term to anglican and reformation figures, for instance: Francis Paget [2], John Jewel [3], and Thomas Cranmer [4]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked my !vote to Delete then redirect. The current article is not about what I think would be an appropriate destination and I think there is nothing to keep in the history. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax - there never was a denomination of this description. St Anselm (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The info box implies that this was a Baptist secession from the church in New England. I do not know if that happened, but if it did, I expect we have article on it under another name. If it existed, some one can create an article; I agree the present name is improbable. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Srnec (talk) 02:44, 28 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dalby[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirements for WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. The page seems to have been created by a sock puppet of User:Andrew Dalby (For evidence, see [5] (mid-way down with title Excursus: the authoress of the ‘Rediscovering Homer’ and ‘Andrew Dalby’ articles on Wikipedia) Furius (talk) 08:48, 23 May 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 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't created by a sock-puppet but by a good friend. It all seems a long time ago, but we're still friends! so, might as well get that detail right. Andrew Dalby 10:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His book Language in Danger, has enough reviews and feature coverage in significant publications to pass WP:NBOOK, which alone carries Dalby past WP:NAUTHOR. Looks like that is also true of Bacchus: A Biography. More to the point, a Proquest news archive search turned up reviews of many of his books in major newspapers, feature articles about him and one or another roof this books, interviews, I added a couple, scanned the rest of the first page of he search,and stopped. I don't know why Nom brought this here. Possible an instance of our rampant PRESENTISM. But this author is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:NAUTHOR does it say that having written a work which passes WP:NBOOK makes an author notable? Furius (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi Furius, no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR, although as Dalby has written a number of notable books (not all have a standalone article), this is a moot point. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR point 3 says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". This is clearly a stricter standard than WP:NBOOK: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews.". The latter explicitly allows for reviews of all forms; the former requires either a long study have been produced of the author, or for them to have been reviewed in periodicals. It seems bizarre that an episode of a television series devoted to Dalby's work would not establish his notability, but a few short newspaper articles are claimed to do so. Furius (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The caution about relying on a single episode of a television series seems likely to be based on the fact that some television series consist primarily of expositions of sensational but essentially trivial material or fringe theories; most newspaper articles do not cover such material in depth, and those that do are often repetitions of the same original review, with more or less material excised, rather than independent articles or reviews. But this still comes across like an attempt to remove an article about a scholar on technical grounds, rather than because you're arguing that his work is trivial or non-notable. If you want to argue that it is, please explain why you think that the whole body material stands on par with works such as, say, Pickwick's "Observations on the Theory of Tittlebats", because that's not at all obvious to the other participants so far. P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; and there are multiple, independent, nontrivial sources about (reviews in scholarly journals of) his books. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm afraid that the nominator's reasoning in this case is underwhelming. Even a cursory glance at the page suggests that the subject is notable, having published works relevant to multiple disciplines that have been covered in other relevant media. I feel that the nominator needs to provide more substantial reasoning as to why none of these works or their reception by others are important enough to make the subject notable enough to have his own article on Wikipedia. The question of the article's authorship seems secondary to me, as long as the contents are notable and verifiable. P Aculeius (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR ie. his books are "known" and have numerous reviews, nominator apparently being unaware of point 3 of WP:AUTHOR applying to book(s) is a concern. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just the reviews on the two bluelinked book titles are enough for WP:AUTHOR. I imagine there's more to be found for his other books. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 26 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewood (album)[edit]

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

While it did chart, #130 is hardly notable. WP:NALBUMS states that if an album does chart it MAY be notable (my emphasis), not that it is notable. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very well aware of what WP:NALBUMS says about "may be" notable—I cite it quite regularly myself. I didn't say that was a guarantee of notability; I said that in combination with its coverage in Pitchfork pointed to it being notable. Sources are out there and could be found. It's a notable topic. Ss112 19:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hung Consensus...More !votes needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 06:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ss112 is usually spot on about which music is notable. ChalkDrawings33 (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 23 May 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community development planning[edit]

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

This article has one source, but the term 'community development' and 'urban planning' are at times synonymous professional practices. As it is I propose this one be deleted and redirected to urban planning. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From a perusal of GBooks and GScholar sources, e.g., The Routledge Handbook of Community Development and Development Planning Concepts and Tools for Planners, Managers and Facilitators, community development planning is a real topic with plenty of sourcing to meet notability per WP:GNG. It might refer to the development of communities or, in the sense used in the article and the Routledge book, community stakeholder engagement in the development process. While there is overlap, it doesn't seem synonymous with urban planning, as such projects could be very local or rural in scope. A notable topic that looks different than urban planning suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rutledge book does not define community development planning in fact it references it 3 times within the text but doesn't even address: what IT is?. For that matter the terms community development and urban/city/urban and regional planning are synonymous in the United States because they employ the same professionals and generally share the same concepts. In general, an urban planner (which is not specific to urban settings they also plan in rural, regional or other settings) does community development. They do so through public engagement, this confusion is part and parcel why a nomination for deletion should exist. With respect to this nomination, it could also be merged with the article Theories of urban planning. As it today it's very stub like. By the way, Reidar Dale is Associate Professor of Urban Planning and Management at the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok and is probably not the only authority on this subject. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Even the (sole) source provided in the text uses another term: "Local Government Planning". The subject is typical of phrases and expressions we use quite often; then, some people start to think the expressions possess Wikinotability. At best, redirect this to "urban planning" or something similar. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 24 May 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 the work appearing 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghegheto Island[edit]

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

Article about a small lake island, whose only discernible claim of notability is that it exists. As always, WP:GEOLAND does not confer an automatic freebie on every named geographic feature that simply exists -- notability for islands of this type depends on being able to state and reliably source some degree of substantive information about it beyond the mere fact that it exists, but there's no evidence of that being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Done what I could do to improve the article quality, which is admittedly not much. It appears that the Cleveland Herald reported the total loss of a ship that went aground on Ghegheto Island in 1884, but I don't have immediate access to the 28 November 1884 newspaper needed to include that (this is not a reliable source). I'm not sure whether that passes the WP:GEOLAND retention bar or not. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. Agree with nom that this island is not notable, and according to Lake Huron, one of 30,000 islands in the lake. But there is some useful and sourced info here that should be retained in some article much as the way non-notable neighborhoods are routinely be mentioned articles on their city/town. List_of_islands_of_Ontario#Lake_Huron already exists but would need some formatting changes to handle short descriptions as that is currently a "pure" list of names. The vast majority of islands in this list are red-links and I presume most of these don't warrant articles either. So adding info into the list article may be the best place for it. MB 03:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems sufficient as a stub and has coverage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sapp[edit]

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

US political consultant. Notability not really apparent from the article, a few mentions here and there as can be expected from anybody involved in US national politics. The article was created by an SPA in 2013 likely as an exercise in self-promotion. The article about his company was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eleison Group. Sandstein 08:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable political consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found a couple sources, but nothing that would pass WP:GNG in my opinion. SportingFlyer talk 04:19, 28 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Raster[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person with no strong claim of notability. This asserts that he was a "statesman", but fails to specify what political role he might have held to earn that title, and that he was an administrative officer to a nobleman (which is not a notability criterion at all), and that his son was notable. But notability is not inherited, so a person with no standalone notability claim of his own does not get a Wikipedia article just to help fill out his son's genealogy -- and the only source cited here at all is his son's autobiography, with no evidence of independent media coverage about his "statesman" or "administrative officer" roles being shown at all. Nothing here, either in the sourcing or the substance, is compelling grounds for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being an "administrative officer" to a nobleman is not a position of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 05:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to it. Literally. -The Gnome (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mentioned in article on his son, redirect is not needed since there is no sourcing beyond the mention son's bio. Being an administrator to an 18th century aristocrat could be notable, but if he was my searches in gBooks would have produced something about him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:31, 29 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genesys (RPG)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale is:

Not enough WP:RS coverage (I only found blogs, forums and the game website...) to support notability. Might be WP:TOOSOON or might simply not be notable outside of niche area. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal opinion at the moment, but of course I might put in a !vote later. Reyk _YO! 12:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sole reference is a full quote of the game brochure. The text is bereft of other citations. The notability is nowhere. The subject is out of lives. -The Gnome (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any secondary independent sources either. Released November 2017, so possibly WP:TOOSOON. Anyhow, at the moment it fails WP:NVG. Narky Blert (talk) 14:54, 26 May 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 Harold Mabern. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Know Why (album)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability apart from one review article. Fails both WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not finding anymore than the allmusic review Atlantic306 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Venus is a Japanese label, so the fact that AllMusic reviewed it is unusual. It will have been reviewed in Japanese publications too, including Swing Journal, but I don't have access to them at the moment. EddieHugh (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect - Because there is a possibility sources exist, a redirect would be appropriate. There is the onus of proof that must be presented here which I'm not finding from my own searches.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 23 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lamb (lawyer)[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the organizational president, but not the public leader, of a political party. This is a role that could potentially get him into Wikipedia if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but not one that hands him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing if the sourcing isn't up to snuff -- but the only source here is his "staff" profile on the political party's own self-published website about itself, which is not a GNG-assisting or notability-conferring source. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing here is good enough as written to get him in the door. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added and sourced a very basic bio. He's not a politician, he's the Party President. His job as a corporate attorney is more or less to make sure that the work he does draws very little press attention, and that's still his job as Party President. Still, he's in the news regularly, talking up candidates, managing political scandals. He's an important behind-the-scenes player in national politics. I note that Nom tagged the article for improvement when he started the AfD. I suggest that we close this as "no consensus" and leave it open, in the hope that some devoted Conservative (or ideological opponent) will wade through the sources and create a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Party president is not a role that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG. It's a role that can get a person an article if the sourcing for it is solid, but not one that entitles them to have an article if the sourcing is junk. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (for now)- the national president of a major political party should be notable enough, but I would like to see more indepth coverage. Another source: [6] (EDIT:my bad, that's the same one, but at least its not paywalled)--Rusf10 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - a national leader of a major party in a major democracy is probably notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and their sourceability, or lack thereof, is what the probability hinges on. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so obviously notable under even the most narrow interpretation of WP:GNG. I'm sure there's more out there than what appears in the article, WP:HEY.Bangabandhu (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument above and new source added by User:JLJ001.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 29 May 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dakshinee[edit]

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

The subject is not notable as per WP:ORG, WP:MUSIC, or WP:GNG. There is clear lack of significant coverage. There is only one short article in the city-specific newspaper which talks about the subject trivially (that too in an opinion section). Other references are taken from either letter-to-the-editor section of some newspaper or non-reliable website. In short, it fails to satisfy WP:PSTS.

Some editors who removed previous PROD requests may have missed WP:ORGSIG point. It is clearly mentioned: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools".

Additionally, none of the information mentioned in the article can be verified as per WP:V. Also, as pointed out by other editors, it looks like a case of self-promotion that violates WP:PROMOTION guidelines. Uvarun2009 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been edited so it is not promotional and actually has serious criticism of the teaching methods and the references to newspaper letters have been removed. The productions of the institution have been reviewed in reliable sources and as the institution was first set up in 1948, there are very likely offline or paywalled reliable sources and overall as most higher schools are kept at AFD regardless of guidelines or RFC see this recent discussion this article should be kept IMHO, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROMOTION was just an additional point behind my deletion nomination. The key point was (and is) notability. A few more points on why I stand by my original decision: a) I think it is clear from the article that this is just a music organization with no proper accreditation. So, it is not really a elementary/middle/high school. Hence, any discussion on those kind of "real" schools has no relevance here. Additionally, any random discussion (where many valid arguments were made by the editors opposing the motion) with no consensus can hardly supersede an established guideline of Wikipedia. b)That the institution exists since 1948 is not verifiable to start with. Moreover, it does not matter. It is clearly mentioned on Wikipedia organization notability guideline: "The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated. Hypothetical sources (e.g. "the company is big/old/important so there must be more sources, I just don't have/can't find them") do not count towards the notability requirement." c) I would like to elaborate on my concern on the lack of significant coverage from independent sources. The two articles from the same newspaper should be considered as the single source, as per the Multiple Source guideline on WP:ORGIND. And bolobolo.co.uk should not even considered as any kind of source on Wikipedia. d) None of the articles are a feature story on the organization. Some are simple passing mentions. Others just talk about some local events briefly where the organization is mentioned. This looks like a classic case of trivial coverage, as it essentially comes under "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies". e) An additional point: most of the information mentioned in the article are not verifiable from any secondary source. Hence, at the end, I believe that the article should be deleted. --Uvarun2009 (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I am not an expert, this might be a well known organisation in Kolkata. I will look for sources and see if I can find any editor who is a native speaker of Bengali.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:01, 29 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Auxier[edit]

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

I see that a user removed the notability tag that had been placed in 2015 based on the subject being the editor of a journal per WP:PROF, but if The Personalist Forum doesn't have its own page, how major a journal is it? Also has edited Library of Living Philosophers, but the other editors listed on that page don't have wiki pages, so again I don't think that should meet PROF. Besides that, the subject of this article seems to have no citations from independent sources that would confer notability per WP:GNG. This article seems to be a textbook example of WP:NOTRESUME. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an article on a candidate who will be trounced in the general election so badly that no one will even notice him being there unless the election is super close. The journal he was editor of was not major, so that does not lead to a pass for being a notable academic, nor does anything else he has done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who cares about his minor political activities? He's notable as a book author, per WP:AUTHOR. I just added 17 published reviews of 8 of his books to the article. I didn't even search for the remaining titles yet so I suspect there's more to come. That's easily enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what counts as "significant critical attention"? After re-scanning the article, I disagree. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 27 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate sandwich[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as there are insufficient reliable sources to support notability. I found (and resurrected via Webarchive) one dead link to a 2004 newspaper article, but a current search yielded no other mentions of this dish. The only other reference in the article as it stands is a recipe. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Time magazine, Telegraph, Telegraph, Times of India, Times of India, Seventeen, Telegraph, NCBI, SMH, SMH. Notable overview topic of other notable chocolate sandwiches, e.g. chocolate sandwich cookies/cakes/crackers/biscuits, sliced chocolate. wumbolo ^^^ 12:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - really the article doesn't do it justice. It's beyond me, Geoff, how your WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with more sources, covering a range of aspects on the overall chocolate sandwich title. More than enough for a keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beats me as well. I really looked and don't know how I missed articles like those mentioned by Wumbolo. I tend to approach these sorts of articles trying to save them first and only nominating when I can't find good sources to add. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:15, 28 May 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) GlasgowBraveheart proved she meets WP:NFOOTBALL by having played for Scotland's senior team twice. Dougal18 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Hunter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as she has yet to play for Scotland's senior team or a game between 2 clubs from fully pro leagues. Fails WP:GNG as none of the sources are anything other than routine coverage. Winning a goal of the month award is utterly irrelevant and can't be used to claim notability. Dougal18 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BIG KEEP - has represented her country. Updated the article with references - can we all remember to check facts before nominating articles for deletion...please? GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Hunter's two game 14 minute 5 years ago international "career". As did you when creating the page and all the other editors. When this is only discovered after 6 months and at AfD then that is troubling. Maybe you should include the whole facts in articles before someone nominates them at AfD .... please? Dougal18 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bjornstad[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:GNG coverage includes an extensive obituary in the American Alpine Journal as well as multiple other climbing publications. Although they oddly all use the same image, they appear written independently and demonstrate compliance with WP:ANYBIO#2. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sources presented above are sufficient for a stub or a start-class article. Notable in his field. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 28 May 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Colleges[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; references have been added the article. While the article is, admittedly, out of date and in need of a significant changes to reflect the current organisation, it covers the premier national competition for this level and is worthy of retention and improvement rather than deletion. LunarLander (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 23 May 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 Little Cleo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Tackle Company[edit]

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

Non notable commercial company. Speedy deletion declined on the grounds that "The Little Cleo has been deemed by Field & Stream to be one of the 50 greatest lures of all time" is a claim of significance. Lyndaship (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Cleo. Not sure that's notable either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this the same company as mentioned in this book? If so, the article doesn't appear correctly written or referenced. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:19, 21 May 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, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Cleo. Not independently notable and Wikipedia surely does not need two article on these closely related topics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 27 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto-Marketing[edit]

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

This is an extremely promotional article which mostly seems to be PR for Jeremy Epstein and his company, Never Stop Marketing. The only independent sources cited do not use the terminology "Crypto-Marketing" at all but simply cover the applications of the blockchain to marketing more generally. As such, I do not feel like "Crypto-Marketing" is notable in and of itself. CataracticPlanets (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this article is extremely promotional and your concerns are mainly a result of the novelty of this field. At the moment, Jeremy Epstein is the only person who has published significant material to define the discipline of Crypto-Marketing. However, in the same way that digital marketing and social media marketing are notable, Crypto-Marketing is notable and is an emerging field which includes a dramatic increase in crypto and blockchain based marketing technology companies in the past year. While I contend that this article should not be deleted, I agree that it should be more balanced in terms of reliance on the work of other individuals involved in this field. --Jacob Melkin (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; blockchain hype. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of WP:TOOSOON. I'm positive my fellow human beings will embrace this crypto-thing too, eventually, but so far it's all Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. And that's not a law firm. -The Gnome (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON is an opinion article and not the basis for deletion of another article. I believe that the whole crypto/blockchain space has been infused with hype and I would agree that an article about "Crypto-Marketing" would be "too soon" six months ago; however, the sheer number of documented companies that have joined the crypto/blockchain marketing technology space recently has indicated that this field is notable in and of itself. --Jacob Melkin (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So "too soon" is simply an opinion but you then present an argument that this is not actually "too soon". What are we to make of this? -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Melkin, I suspect you may not properly understand what "notable" means in a Wikipedia context. It's not the same as "important" or "popular" or "successful". DS (talk) 14:24, 29 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EverMarkets Exchange[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable blockchain related Company. Don't see multiple significant articles from reliable sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This looks like undisclosed native advertising. Creator notified of sanctions. MER-C 09:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of buzz. Quoting from the text, "EMX was founded in 2017 and...will open...in late 2018." Can't you wait even a few months?! -The Gnome (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails everything including WP:SPIP, GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a subject fails everything perhaps that makes it notable. -The Gnome (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you all for the feedback. It all makes sense and, while I can improve the article now, perhaps it makes more sense to wait until the company can pass more of the tests down the road. Full disclosure: I was not paid for this. dtdiaz805 16:11, 29 May 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018#District 23. While she has received plenty of coverage, it is only in the context of her electoral run, and these publications would not have taken an interest in her life and bio if she weren't a candidate for office. Currently she does not have sufficient notability independent of the election. A brief blurb about her can be written in the election article, and of course her article can be restored if she is elected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Ortiz Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NPOL. Unelected congressional candidates are generally not considered notable. The coverage surrounding her is about her campaign, and she doesn't otherwise appear to meet our notability thresholds. We typically create articles for members of the U.S. House once they win a general election, and not before. Should be redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018 as per usual. Marquardtika (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018. There is a lot of coverage for this individual, since she is the nominee a competitive US House race this year. But all of the notability is derived from this one event, the election. If she wins the election, then it will be easy to restore the article from the page history and continue work on it. If she loses the election, then she will have no notability outside of the election and there will be no need to keep the article for years to come. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To quote a common theme expressed at previous AfD, This person easily passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." She is included under GNG, not NPOL. As also disclosed in previous AfD, I created the article because I had seen some of the "substantial" coverage of her and wanted more information. Winning the runoff makes her more notable and more likely to attract coverage, not less so. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per HouseOfChange reasoning. Blorg (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, HouseOfChange (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep at this time. If she loses, not notable for stand alone article, but if she wins, would be enough to pass. Winning the runoff is not enough, but why delete and redirect at this time. Instead, in this case, should wait and see. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability for politicians works. We don't keep candidates until the election and then delete their articles if they lose, we wait until the election is over, and only then do we start creating articles about the winners. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018. This individual has done nothing notable other than their candidacy for congress, the information here is more properly placed in the article about the election than as a stand alone article. If she wins the election, or makes other notable runs for offices in the future she would then be sufficient material to warrant her own article.XavierGreen (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2018 per others above. --Enos733 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for US congress are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gina Ortiz Jones meets the WP:GNG guidelines as although she is an un-elected candidate, she has received considerable press coverage in news outlets ranging from local to national. Should she not be elected, this conversation could be revisited, however at the current time I believe the article should remain, but with some additional work to bring additional sources into the article as needed. JaxisMaximus (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election. Candidates do not get into Wikipedia just for being candidates — she has to win the election and thereby hold the office, not just run in the election, to be considered notable as a politician, and otherwise is notable only if she already had enough preexisting notability for other reasons to qualify for an article independently of her candidacy. And the existence of some campaign-related coverage does not give a candidate a free GNG pass that exempts them from having to pass NPOL, either — the volume and depth and range of coverage shown here can always be shown by every candidate in every election everywhere, so if this were all it took then NPOL would never be applicable at all, because no candidate for any office anywhere would ever fail to be able to show as much campaign coverage as this. The article can absolutely be recreated in November if she wins the seat, because her notability equation will have changed to a straight NPOL #1 pass that guarantees a Wikipedia article — but nothing here is a good reason, or good enough sourcing, to already get her a Wikipedia article today. The notability test for Wikipedia articles is not temporary newsiness — it is will people still be looking for this article ten years from now. Officeholders pass that test, but candidates do not. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The personal story of Ortiz Jones has been covered at length in both Teen Vogue and the Harvard Political Review--this is not actually typical of every candidate in every election. She has been interviewed by the NYT and quoted by Time Magazine, among many other news sources. She passes GNG by a country mile. Yes, she fails NPOL, WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:NARTIST, and many other criteria. The point is she qualifies under GNG. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she passes GNG on the sources shown here, then every candidate for any office anywhere automatically passes GNG too — the volume of sources shown here is not wildly out of scope with the number of sources that other candidates could also show. But our notability standards for politicians are intentionally designed to neckpunch "candidates are notable because media coverage of the campaign exists" to death, because Wikipedia is not and does not want to become a free public relations repository of campaign brochures. Our notability rules are not based on temporary newsiness, but on whether a person passes the ten year test for enduring significance — for any article about any person, regardless of occupation, the base test that always needs to come true before starting an article becomes justified is always "there is a credible reason to believe that readers will still be looking for an article about this person ten years from now". I have yet to see how Gina Ortiz Jones passes that test as of today — she'll pass it if she wins the election, certainly, but as a candidate the only test she already passes today is "do this notability claim and this sourcing just make her a WP:BLP1E?" Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved her article with more citations. The subject appears to have received enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG even if you don't include typical campaign coverage. She received plenty of local and national discussion that included significant discussion about her uniqueness as a candidate before she even won the nomination.[7][8][9] If you look her up in Google News, you can see she's receiving far more coverage than is typical for a candidate.[10] For example, there are many detailed profiles about her and how her candidacy is unique because if she won she would be the be the first female, first openly gay, first Iraq veteran, and first Flipino-American to take the seat if she wins.[11][12][13][14] Lonehexagon (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those "firsts" are notable right now, because she hasn't won yet. Thats all speculation.XavierGreen (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates are not notable just because of the historic firsts that they will come to represent if they win an election they haven't won yet — especially if their historicity is limited to their own district. Even if she wins the seat, she will not be the first female, first openly gay, first Iraq veteran or first Filipino-American member of Congress period — she'll only be the first of any of those things to represent her own individual district as opposed to other districts, which is not historically important enough to make her candidacy notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't look like it is deletable at this moment. --Komitsuki (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Media coverage is extensive as per WP:GNG, including coverage by a British newspaper meaning she is getting some international attention, unlike other candidates. Million_Moments (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election page or delete. WP:GNG only creates a presumption an article is suitable. Unelected candidates do not have a notability guarantee. I agree this article has better sourcing than most articles for most candidates, but all of the articles talk about how she could make history - this doesn't pass the ten-year test per WP:RECENT. Therefore, I think it's best to redirect. If something else notable happens during the election, or she wins, we can reinstate it easily. Also, there are several keep votes above which suggest we should revisit the article if she loses - these should be struck as failures of WP:TOOSOON, as notability is not temporary. SportingFlyer talk 21:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems excessive to strike votes for failing WP:TOOSOON, as that page explicitly says, "This page is an essay on notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, I've used WP:TOOSOON here to demonstrate she may be notable shortly. Importantly, the votes also fail WP:NTEMP, which is a guideline. SportingFlyer talk 01:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any votes fail WP:NTEMP, which states, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." How does that contradict the desire to wait and see for a topic that certainly seems to be notable now, and easily passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources? If anything, that's evidence this article should stay because it does pass GNG already and notability is not temporary. Lonehexagon (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What "notability is not temporary" means is that we do not keep articles pending the outcome of a future notability test that hasn't already been passed yet as of today. We do not hang onto premature articles about political candidates until election day and then delete the ones who lost; we wait until election day before we start new articles about the candidates who won. We do not keep articles about TV pilots that have been announced as entering the production pipeline but have not actually been upfronted by a network yet and then delete them only if the network turns them down; we wait until the upfronts before we start new articles about the pilots that did get picked up and scheduled. And on and so forth: we do not start premature articles about people or things who might pass a notability criterion in the future that they have not already passed yet as of today — we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today, and then permit recreation in the future if things change. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple votes which say at this moment or should she not be elected, this conversation can be revisited. These, to me, indicate she's only notable since she's a candidate, and her candidacy will not be notable if she does not not win. The desire to "wait and see" typically means we're not ready for an article, whether it's a sports player who hasn't quite made the first team, or a candidate who hasn't quite become a politician yet, and suggests a draftify or redirect over a keep. SportingFlyer talk 17:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". A person can be notable just for being a candidate if they fulfill the base requirement of WP:GNG. That is the case here. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. She hasn't won or lost yet, but even with the amount of coverage so far, assuming she loses, there's not enough here to keep her from undergoing another deletion review. A redirect is the best option. Keep in mind WP:GNG only creates a presumption. SportingFlyer talk 05:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The official guidelines are extremely specific about unelected politicians ("such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'"). Your example from an unofficial essay, "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted" does not even refer to candidates who are campaigning. It is talking specifically about losing candidates, which this person is not. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the official guidelines only create a presumption, and when the sources are only about the candidacy, and the candidacy isn't particularly notable, it's ripe for a redirect. The fact she would likely have her article deleted if she lost is a perfect example of the notability issues we have with unelected candidates. SportingFlyer talk 17:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What NPOL says and doesn't say: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." WP:NPOL requires significant coverage independent of the subject. It does NOT require that publications taking an interest in the subject should not mention, as a primary hook, that the person is running for elective office. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be very specific - and typically, politicians who would pass WP:NPOL would have significant coverage by independent journalists. Per your comment, we'd pretty much keep every candidate or even local official who gets written about in the paper. However, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, which, yes, is not binding, candidates that run for office do not get the same presumption someone else who might clearly pass WP:GNG would, as candidates who aren't otherwise notable present problems of recentism, not being a newspaper, and promotional concerns. SportingFlyer talk 17:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're trying to argue against very specific official guidelines on unelected politicians ("such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'") by citing an unofficial essay. WP:POLOUTCOMES also specifically says, "This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Lonehexagon (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is an adequately sourced entry for GNG; I also think it’s done well enough to be useful to readers (and I’ve done a bit to try to make it better though the sources provide more room for improvement); and I am perplexed by the rationale for a second deletion nomination when it closed as no consensus in the previous month and since then reliable secondary source coverage has only increased. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a candidate who is getting enough national media coverage to pass WP:GNG, here's a profile in the Daily Beast: Woman, Lesbian, Filipina-American, Iraq Veteran: How Gina Ortiz Jones Could Make Texas Political History].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Human (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album by a notable group. We know that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the album fails WP:NALBUM. For instance, The AllMusic entry contains no professional rating nor review. We see a few brief mentions such as the Alt Press entry or http://loudwire.com/escape-the-fate-i-am-human-album-papa-roach-tour/ but nothing substantial. No professional reviews to be found but lots of blogs [15] [16] [17]. No charting that I could see. The only issue left is to determine if it should be returned to a redirect (and locked) or deleted (and salted). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few usable reviews: [18][19][20] I've used all these sites before on quality articles. Though I must say I was surprised the Allmusic had nothing on them. If you insist I add them all at once to take away the redirect (although I hate that mentality), that is what I shall do, but no further action here should be necessary. And, unless their discography is lying to me, the album did indeed chart. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I stand corrected on the charting. I checked Billboard and could not find the band, but https://www.billboard.com/music/escape-the-fate/chart-history/independent-albums/song/1072004 shows it charting at No. 8 on independent Albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to have charted in Australia on a national chart [21] thus fulfilling the notability requirement of WP:NALBUM Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't like the premise that a chart listing alone can fulfill notability requirements, but we are not here to change guidelines. Regardless, there seems to be some coverage in Beat Magazine, Loudwire, and Upset Magazine; I cut a bit of slack since hardcore bands generally receive less press.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what's up. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good sourcing. I did WP:BEFORE, but none of these were found. I withdraw my nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Close due to withdrawn nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian Maritime Academy[edit]

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

The references do not establish notability. One is a simple catalog listing. The other is a directory that the organization had to purchase/pay for its inclusion. Does not meet the guidelines for WP:ORG Barbara ✐ ✉ 01:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the references. Sindanna (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)— Sindanna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm looking through the List of maritime colleges to see how other articles like this are done, and those articles I checked so far have no reliable sources covering them at all, some having no reference section at all even. This one is so only 36 staff members and 916 students, but many other school listed are about the same. I think this should be judged as we would any college/university. I don't recall any article for a government run college ever being deleted. This sort of article benefits this encyclopedia, and should be kept. As the Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Dream Focus 10:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dream Focus. I also think this article benefits Wikipedia and we should keep it. It is a state college where one can get bachelor and master degree and it is a governmental and a public institution. Although the size of the Academy may be small (916 students), but so is the size of population in the country (1,957,200 inhabitants). I have added more references (mostly taken from the official governmental sources or sources connected with EU) and now it is very rich if we compare this article with the other ones in the same category ( like here). I believe it improved a lot. The article probably needs some more work (I agree with the "stub" tag), but for sure we should not delete it. Sindanna (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)— Sindanna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding institution. No good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a public university, the only one offering some types of degrees in Latvia. It is well known, it is of considerable size (given the small size of the country), it has media coverage and participates in international projects. It is listed on Wikipedia in other languages (Russian, Latvian, Estonian) where its listing is not questioned. Moreover, the page has been improved considerably and the number of independent references is considerable. Other academic institutions have worse pages but their existence seems fine (even though they are more stub-like than this page). Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Latvian I can confirm that this is a legit and well known institution that has existed for decades. It is notable even if the article is poorly sourced right now ~~Xil (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accredited, degree-awarding institution. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong and easy. Should never have been nominated, folks. It's a fully accredited, state-operated maritime college. Latvian speaking contributors are invited to improve text and sources. -The Gnome (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Textbook case of WP:BEFORE – should've been tagged with ((refimprove)) instead. Mojoworker (talk) 16:16, 28 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arcutek Corporation[edit]

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

Clearly promotional. Does not meet the notability guide lines of WP:ORG Barbara ✐ ✉ 01:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Apologies for the premature move, I moved the page back to a draft. JE98 (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I can't find any significant coverage online in WP:RS, not even in passing mentions. Still under 10 staff in their third year, according to their Crunchbase profile. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hello team, this follows the basic Wikipedia guidelines and contains primary source evidence from the citation list. The size of the company is not relevant to the validity of the information on the article. To question whether this article is valid, we must also consider other articles within the same field such as CDW Corporation and SHI International Corp Hakl33t (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about size; it's about having significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources (see WP:GNG). Also, the presence or quality of other articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on whether this particular article meets the notability standards (see WP:OSE for more on that). clpo13_(talk) 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For arguing that "other stuff exists" in Wikipedia, Hakl33t, see "other stuff exists". -The Gnome (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of subject failing WP:NCORP. Cannot find much, either. Hopefully, WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Zero indications of notability. None of the references are intellectually independent and none meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe this is a secondary source of information that was cited in the article, "Cheryl (February 9, 2017). "Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508" (PDF). City Colleges of Chicago" I'll add additional sources and edit the document. Please provide some additional feedback, I appreciate you all helping out on this. Hakl33t (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like advertisement Heshiv (talk) 10:31, 28 May 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.