< 29 September	1 October >

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. czar 22:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toad Catchers' Creek[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:BK Mccapra (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:BKAuldhouse (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on news, no reprints after the first in 2005. Refs in the article are 404. Szzuk (talk) 18:47, 7 October 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. Tone 17:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Nunziata[edit]

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

Textbook WP:COATRACK. Article about a person running for a local political position that would not meet the WP:POLITICIAN bar even if he were elected, who has two notable relatives (WP:NOTINHERITED). His endorsement by a controversial darkhorse mayoral candidate also does not establish notability. The article is just being loaded with irrelevant negative material about other controversial politicians. Was tagged as a WP:BLPPROD but sources were added. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 19:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 19:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides the content and sources not precisely giving reasons to show that John meets WP:Notability, the first search result only shows paintings about him, the second is about a fashion show, all of which have nothing to do with him being a politician 6Packs (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet notability guidelines, lacks reliable sourcing and also doesn't seem to say anything about the subject to begin with.Citing (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ivanvector Yes, I can see now that it was ill advised for me to start the bio as subject is not notable enough in his own right. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 23:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thing the first, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won. Thing the second, school board trustees don't get Wikipedia articles even if they win the election. Thing the third, people don't get Wikipedia articles just because of who their father and aunt are either. Thing the fourth, seven of the nine footnotes here are to Twitter tweets, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources, and the other two are glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him — exactly none of which is how you source a person as notable. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NPOL candidates do not have notability on their own. Notability is also not inherited from a more famous relative. Finally, school board trustees are not notable enough to meet even the Municipal politician guidelines (as Bearcat mentioned above). Bkissin (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' to John Nunziata. Probably deserves a mention and a redirect to his father's page but that is about it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:31, 2 October 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. Tone 17:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon subsequent request, restored and created a redirect. --Tone 21:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Visonic[edit]

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

Delete this article because Visonic does not meet Wikiedia's notability guidelines in terms of coverage. Specifically, it fails to meet the in depth coverage indicated in WP:CORP. This article has been around since 2009 and even though problems with notability have been highlighted since March 2015, there has been no significant improvement. Much of the editing appears to have been by those with a conflict of interest. While the advertisement tone is likely fixable, doing so would not address the more serious issue of lack of even mimimal in depth coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Online sources do not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH necessary to establish notability. Peacock (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP; no indications of significance. $100M purchase price is pretty low. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Tyco International#Visonic, the company that acquired Visonic, in lieu of deletion. I have merged information about Visonic to Tyco International and added more information with sources I found.
Cunard (talk) 05:05, 7 October 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. Tone 17:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misdeal (cards)[edit]

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

This has been expanded slightly, but I believe it is still, in the end, a WP:DICDEF. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question @JzG: can you identify any article in Category:Card game terminology which is not about card game terminology? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further I'm struggling to see how DICDEF relates to notability WP:GNG in this case? The act of a misdeal is clearly notable, so how does DICDEF apply? This is the nutshell of DICDEF:

This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.

If "misdeal" is simply and only a term for something else, rather than a real thing, then what else is a misdeal called and where is that article? i.e. What is the article in Category:Card game terminology which deals with the same thing (a misdeal of cards) by a different name?? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF, obviously, but there are many terms of art in card games that have wider usage - wild card, when the chips are down, etc. Misdeal, on the other hand, seems like a dictionary definition. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the nutshell says. Which of these is a DICDEF? Which is X under a different name? Beer card, Bettel (cards), Bettler, Bidding (cards), Blank (playing card), Blatt (playing card), Booster pack, Bottom dealing, Card binder, Card player, Card sharp, Card sleeve, Clubs (card suit) , Collectible card game, Cube (collectible card game variation), Cut (cards) , Deck-building game, Dedicated deck card game, Faro shuffle , Flush (cards), Glatze, Glossary of patience terms, In shuffle, Joker (playing card), Kontra (cards), Meld (cards), Misdeal (cards), Misère, Out shuffle, Perfect shuffle, List of playing-card nicknames, Real-time card game, Revoke, Ruff (cards), Run (cards), Schieberamsch, Schneider (cards), Schwarz (cards), Second dealing, Set (cards), Shedding-type games, Shortened pack, Shuffling, Sideboard (cards), Singles (cards), Skartindel, Skatindel, Stripped deck, Talon (cards), Trick (cards), Trick-taking game, Trull (cards), Trump (card games), Upcard, Void (cards), Wild card (cards) In ictu oculi (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge along with any other small cardgame terminology article into Glossary of card game terms._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep we could in theory go over misdeals (what makes for a misdeal, effect of one) for each card game. That would take this well beyond any reasonable definition of DICDEF. But we didn't because that material already exists. The topic isn't just a definition. Hobit (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable term in card games, sourced, can be expanded, and it never was a DICDEF. If anything, why was at least a merge not proposed prior to taking this to AFD? Alternatives to deletion is a fundamental part of deletion policy but all too often ignored. Sam Sailor 09:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per User:Zxcvbnm — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems to misunderstand the WP:DICDEF policy. That has nothing to do with size; it's all about the style and nature of the article. This article is not about a particular word, its etymology, grammar and other lexical attributes. It's clearly just a stub about a common issue in card games, like shuffling or cutting. That topic is notable and so the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Sam Sailor and Andrew D. A notable card-playing term like the others mentioned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If I understand the nominators rationale properly, this is because the article is a stub that can't be expanded, or only a definition (Which it isn't). Shortness isn't a deletion criteria, and there seems to be plenty of sources for this. It's also expandable, if there was say, a high profile card game that involved a misdeal, or in a film. EDIT - Almost certain this is a plot feature in the film - Lucky You (film).Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 3 October 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. czar 21:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goetic demons in popular culture[edit]

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

A graveyard for fancruft. While the Goetic demons as a group are notable, there is no indication that their portrayal in modern fiction, as such, is covered in reliable sources. Accordingly, this fails WP:LISTN. The content as a whole is mostly unsourced or sourced only to passing mentions in pop culture ephemera. Sandstein 18:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --John M Wolfson (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Pure fancruft. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously just a place where they stuck all the unnecessary "in popular culture" sections. Still unnecessary as a whole._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:09, 1 October 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. Unanimous modulo socks. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naveed Qazi[edit]

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

Non-notable author with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and fails WP:AUTHOR. The creator appears to have a conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator, non notable, COI article trying to make self notable by having a Wikipedia article instead of the other way around. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence anywhere of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Naveed Qazi is a popular writer in Kashmir. he is a profilic columnist. Almost all regional newspapers have published him. The newspapers are popular and authentic even the portals like free press Kashmir. Writers like Mirza Waheed, Fahad Shah, Siddhartha Gigoo, Z G Muhammad have praised his writing who have Wikipedia profiles too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readeratbest (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note that Readeratbest has no other edits. I strongly suspect this is a block-evading sockpuppet. --Yamla (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Readeratbest has removed the comments above by Viewmont Viking (signed "VViking") and myself. Since attempting to disrupt this discussion by repeatedly removing the AfD notice from the article was one of the disruptive practices of the creator of the article, that adds to the impression of sockpuppetry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Please mind your language. I'm new to encylopedia and I’ll start editing soon. I m new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readeratbest (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

You've already indicated you think the article should be kept. Do not attempt to stack the votes like that. --Yamla (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’ keep’’’ This writer is a popular individual because he has written two books and is a popular columnist in Kashmir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koshur ninja (talk • contribs) 13:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for already striking out your comment, block-evading sockpuppet. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 5 October 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 2017–18 South Pacific cyclone season. Per WP:ATD. The history is still there, so if somebody wants to merge anything, it's available. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical Cyclone Lexi[edit]

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

Not much content that it doesn't deserve an article. Also, the storm is not special and doesn't have much impacts on land. B dash (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That petition of deletion dont have sense,the article can be expanded and improve Olo72 (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olo72 (talk • contribs)

Delete - As one of the main editors for South Pacific tropical cyclones, I have seriously wondered if Lexi really deserved its own article and my opinion is no. The marine weather warning centre's for the region Peru/Chili did not classify the system as a subtropical cyclone and nor did any of the other warning centres like the JTWC. In fact, it only seems to be NOAA's Satellite Analysis Branch that classified it as a subtropical cyclone and the rest of the limited amount of sources seem to show that people just jumped on the bandwagon. I feel that this would be enough for a mention in the other systems of 2017-18 South Pacific cyclone season, However, we do not include any of the other subtropical cyclones that occur in the South Pacific, as they are generally normally not classified as XXF, XXU or named, which makes me wonder if we really should mention it at all. I also wonder how much information is available without us resorting to making up records that may well be valid, but are based on our interpretation of the various databases. I also note that any damage within Chilli would have been minimal and that there probably wasn't any bar a bit of snow/rain.Jason Rees (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I proposed the redirect/merge for failing WP:N, and since that has failed... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and mention in other storms section Figfires^{Send me a message!} 02:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Meteochile has priority at the basin where the sub-cyclone formed. If the service had not issued advisories, this article should not continue in the wiki.--🌀 Byralaal ⚕ (+505-chat-toMe) 01:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose – This storm is the only one of its kind recorded anywhere near Chile, also a region where tropical/subtropical cyclone formation has been nearly unimaginable. Although impacts are important, we have multiple articles for storms with very meager or no impacts at all, such as Hurricane Hector (2018) and Hurricane Walaka. BTW, claiming that the storm "is not special" is a fringe argument - it hold a couple of records that are well worth noting, and we also should not use impacts as the primary means of judging whether or not a storm deserves an article: notability should be the golden standard. Although this article has several issues with its current layout, there's nothing that a revision couldn't fix (I was also planning to cleanup and expand the article in the next week or so). Wikipedia is not the media, and it should not act like the other media outlets, but if we keep deleting articles because a storm/subject has no widespread or official recognition, a lot of articles on this site will end up being deleted or redirected. I always prefer improvement over outright deletion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Master of Time, Hurricanehink, Knowledgekid87, Legacypac, Xyklone, Final-Fantasy-HH, and Cyclonebiskit: Pinging other editors to generate a more widespread discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to 2017–18 South Pacific cyclone season. Meteorological notability of Lexi is there, but there's insufficient content to justify a standalone article. Although other articles exist without impact, they generally have ample meteorological details whereas that is not present here. Contents can be effectively conveyed in the other systems section of the article. Satellite bulletins by NOAA warrant inclusion in the season article. Can always be revisited in the future if journal articles are written about the system and cover the development of Lexi more in-depth. Note: there is some personal bias here as the system is named after my dog. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to 2017–18 South Pacific cyclone season. - classic example of an unofficial cyclone (Other storms) that has reputable agencies asserting its existence, but not enough independent content to have its own article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to 2017–18 South Pacific cyclone season. This isn't a situation like Hurricane Catarina, we are dealing with a sub-tropical storm which received far less coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 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. Tone 17:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

271 (number)[edit]

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

This was redirected to 270 (number)#271. It was reverted, saying notability was not needed as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you see 270 (number), it shows many numbers don't have articles, many do. It is also wholly unreferenced. Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.171.143 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a reason to delete in the nomination and so there's no case to answer. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 270 There has been a longstanding consensus that integers do not get their own articles unless there is a reason for notability as established in reliable sources, as written at WP:NUMBER. The general procedure appears to be to redirect them to the nearest multiple of ten rounding down. This article, and several others, recently had their redirects removed by a disruptive editor who would then post totally unsourced trivia about the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:AFD is not cleanup. Of course it would be nice if it could have references, but you don't really need a ref for something like "it is divisible 183.222 and when squared, it equals (123.456 * 7²". L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 270, per long-standing convention. This is the wrong forum, as Delete is clearly inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the others that are merged have much less information, and therefore do not provide a reason why this should be also. The truly fundamental reason why we have notability rules is because non-notable subjects are likely to be promotional, and that does not apply here. Having 100 or so articles on numbers that might not really be absolutely necessary does no harm whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--@David Eppstein:Your opinions would be welcome:-)∯WBG^converse 09:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has as much right as any other number to haver its own article and to delete it would be a discouragement to a new editor who has put quite a bit of effort into creating it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth, are numbers notable by default or something sort of that exists?Honestly, I have no idea. I mean, can I go and create 1,67,874 and expect it to be kept? ∯WBG^converse 13:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:NUMBER says For the sake of completeness, however, it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 260 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others. 167,874 is a little bigger than 260 so you would need something notable about it. SpinningSpark 14:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NUMBER criteria #1 (three independent interesting facts) and #3 (by way of being on Friedman's list). And also its sexy, which I shall now go and write in the article. SpinningSpark 14:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as nominated was filled with boring properties (unsourced but easily sourceable) that made me think it failed WP:NUMBER, but there are several properties on OEIS labeled as "nice" for which it comes early in the sequence (my usual way of testing whether it passes criterion #1). I've edited the article to cut the chaff and focus on properties I think are more interesting, with sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks fine to me. After recent improvements, it's adequately sourced for a stub. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per arguments above. I don't have anything new to add. ~~hate to use WP:Otherstuffexists, but in this case I think you can make an exception ie in the sake of completeness as mentioned~~ by Spinning Spark.JC7V-constructive zone 16:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually an argument that I made. I pointed out that WP:NUMBER calls for completeness up to 260. This number lies outside the scope of that. SpinningSpark 19:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough moderately-interesting properties to make a credible case that WP:NUMBER is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How silly is a practice of redirecting numbers like 271 to rounder numbers like 270, that could only be the decision of a too-small group of editors. Seems interesting. There is mention in discussion above by User:SpinningSpark that 271 is a Sexy prime, and it was asserted that would be added to the article, but it is not there now. Was it not true, or was the assertion deemed not significant enough? --Doncram (talk) 07:55, 6 October 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. Tone 17:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ebersson/Zanussi/Lofthus[edit]

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

This was previously PRODed, which I removed while I looked to see if there was coverage out there, given the three notable members here. I didn't find enough to justify an article, and the content here is redundant to the articles on the three musicians. 'Ebersson' is a mis-spelling, so this is unlikely to be useful as a redirect. There is also a separate article for the album (which also looks like it shouldn't be retained as an article), so there's no point repurposing this as an album article. Michig (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unsourced article which would have fallen under the WP:BLP requirements had it been created a few years later than 2006. The article text is also extremely close to a Google Translate of this 2006 concert preview item. Note also that the cover of Bring It On (Eberson/Zanussi/Lofthus album) describes the ensemble as "Jon Eberson Trio", a name under which he has also worked with musicians other than these named here. In the absence of any indication that this particular grouping was especially noted, I would say this fails WP:MUSICBIO #1 and I don't see #6 as covering what appears to have been only an occasional combination. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreeing with AllyD's reasons. But this is as good a time as any to ask whether notability gives someone the Midas Touch. In other words, if a person is notable, does everything they touch turn to gold? Is everything they are involved in automatically notable as an article? Their bands, their albums, the record labels they recorded for, their spouses, kids, dog...I would also like to see someone clear up for me how far the English Wikipedia should accommodate articles in other languages. Many articles about musicians include foreign languages as sources and external links. Without knowledge of that language, it's impossible to evaluate them—or do much of anything to them, even fix a citation error, and there are plenty. If an English-speaking person on the English Wikipedia can't check a footnote because it's in Norwegian, then what's the point of having a citation? It defeats the purpose a citation. If published sources in English are so hard to find, moreover, that suggests to me that the subject is not notable. And yet I continue to have articles de-prodded because "there are sources in Norwegian". Well, I don't speak Norwegian and neither do most readers on the English Wikipedia. Let's keep these readers in mind. They are the ones we should be accommodating.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:52, 1 October 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. Tone 17:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Gensler[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fall short of criterion #4 of WP:NHOCKEY (I don't think first team all-star qualifies for his league) and not finding enough coverage to meet GNG, although this may be a start. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Neutral. He does pass criterion #4, however this may be a case where he might not have enough supporting articles to the pass the WP:GNG. After a quick search there are some articles about him but a lot of them are routine sports coverage. At this point I'll wait to see what other arguments people have to say before deciding which camp I'm in. Deadman137 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Deadman137: In NHOCKEY#4, in All-American is not the same as All-Atlantic Hockey. There are only 20 players per year from all of NCAA Div. I that get First or Second Team All-American, but 10 players from only Atlantic Hockey make First or Second team there. From the years he won All-Atlantic Hockey, only Tim Kirby in 2011–12 also made All-American. Yosemiter (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a good enough argument to change my support to delete. Deadman137 (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete No significant coverage to meet GNG and no accomplishments that meet NHOCKEY.Sandals1 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 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. Tone 17:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim Shah Jahan[edit]

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

I am failed to find any coverage in RS. Cited source doesn't say anything about the subject. Saqib (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The second source is a blog and no other reliable source can be found on the subject. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find sources. Being Nawab of the Punjab would be quite notable, however in this case (if this even passes V) - this was a title only - with no effective control the Mughals losing control of the Punjab in the 1750s - some 100 years prior to this Nawabship. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali I. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to add that the blog post was made on 03 September 2018 and then used as a reference here on that same day. Looks like an attempt to add fake credibility. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the other articles concerning the subject, and the research by User:HyperGaruda, this seems to be an attempt to fabricate a fictitious title, and the holders of said title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Username Needed (talk • contribs) 05:23, 05 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:43, 5 October 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. Tone 17:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Galin[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:CRIME Mccapra (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This individual does not meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG as I can find no substantial coverage of him in reliable independent sources. Nor does he meet WP:PERP as far as I can make out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:CRIME or WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 3 October 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. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (John Gell) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fateh Muhammad Khan[edit]

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

I am failed to find any coverage in RS. Cited source doesn't say anything about the subject. Saqib (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to connected it with citations but may or may not be you find about this on google easily. You will see the article and I think that it should not be deleted as I am working on it under Wikiproject of Bahawalpur State. Thanks! John Gell (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being Nawab of Bahawalpur (princely state) seems inherently notable. It seems this individual was born as "Haji Khan" assuming "Fateh Muhammad Khan" on becoming Nawab and typically referred to as "Nawab Fateh Khan". I am satisfied by (some of which are indeed borderline quality wise) - [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] - that he was Nawab until his death in 1858 and that he deposed his brother. Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note The creator of this bio has created dubious bios in the past - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MUHAMMAD SAFIULLAH. --Saqib (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rules of Indian Princely States are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 3 October 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. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (John Gell) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali I[edit]

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

I am failed to find any coverage in RS. Cited source doesn't say anything about the subject. Saqib (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to connected it with citations but may or may not be you find about this on google easily. You will see the article and I think that it should not be deleted as I am working on it. Thanks! John Gell (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - long name with common ending (as well as period) makes verifying this difficult in my BEFORE, however if his position of a Nawabs of Punjab is confirmed, that probably would be inherently notable. Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verification fails. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MUHAMMAD SAFIULLAH - the master sock created dubious bios in the past. --Saqib (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a WP:HOAX - it has spread on Wikipedia to well beyond this page - see Nawabs of Punjab, Humayun Bakht, House of Hakim. ~~I suspect however it is possible to verify this.~~ Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried chasing down the refs in this newly created article - without success. The external links do not seem reliable (and one of the two doesn't mention him). Furthermore, it seems that if this individual existed he was a pretender to the title from the Mughals - who lost control of the Punjab (Battle of Lahore (1752), Third Battle of Panipat) - making the claim to inherent notability very sketchy, and it does not seem this individual passes GNG. Note that it seems this content was inserted into several other articles as seen above. Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ -- If he was a nawab, I would also expect him to be notable. The name is a common one, so that verification will not be easy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: See comments above. --Saqib (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DElete - I purposely only commented and prefaced what I said with If. I have since followed links to read a source cited in respect of his alleged predecessor Humayun Bakht. This has long accounts of conflicts between the Marathas and Afghans over Punjab, ending with the rise of the Sikh kingdom. Nowhere did this mention any nawab, from which I have to conclude that the position of nawab was at most a titular one, carrying no actual authority. This leads me to the opposite conclusion from what I wrote above. I would certainly have expected a nawab to be notable, but in this case, at best he was not. WE may be dealing with a pervasive hoax, as Icewhiz suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a HOAX, on closure, can someone please nominate the rest of it for deletion. My knowledge of Indian history is sketchy and I am therefore reluctant to do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nawab position did exist, AFAICT. And the predecessor did hold some sway on the ground. It is a harder case in that the later (unverified) titular Nawabs are in various article - harder to fix than straight up deletion.Icewhiz (talk) 18:09, 3 October 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. Tone 17:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inno Garage[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG by a mile or so. ∯WBG^converse 14:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The articles gives it a soapy feeling. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:57, 2 October 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. Tone 17:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Net Technologies[edit]

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

Not a single source that manages to muster passage of WP:NCORP is located. ∯WBG^converse 14:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:56, 2 October 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 Clearstream. Agreement that notability is met, but that, at least in the current circumstances, it is an unwarranted CONTENTFORK (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cedel[edit]

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

@BoogieWithStu: Incompetent deprod by Andrew Davidson. Original prod reason by BoogieWithStu still stands. Company fails WP:NCORP and is unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 13:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to Clearstream. While there are some sources on Cedel as an independent entity (see here, here, and here), it can be easily treated in the history section of the Clearstream page. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable, being documented in detail in sources such as the following. Andrew D. (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bank & Brokerage Back Office Procedures & Settlements
Plumbers and Visionaries: Securities Settlement and Europe's Financial Market
ISSA Handbook
Bonds without Borders: A History of the Eurobond Market
A history of the Eurobond market: the first 21 years
Securities Operations: A Guide to Operations and Information Systems in the Securities Industry
Cross-Border Securities: Repo, Lending and Collateralisation
New York Times

Delete or Redirect it's still unsourced and it's still not notable. BoogieWithStu (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clearstream. I agree the subject is clearly notable. However, as our Clearstream article clearly states in the beginning of its history -- Clearstream was founded as "Cedel" (Centrale de Livraison de Valeurs Mobilières) in September 1970 by 66 of the world's major financial institutions as a clearing organisation whose objective was to minimise risk in the settlement of cross-border securities trading, particularly in the growing Eurobond market.[6]. In as much as someone develops an article on the pre-2000-2 period separately from Clearstream - then perhaps a standalone article is possible, however the current one-line stub (which factually conflicts Clearstream#History which is sourced (1970 vs. 1971, number of banks)) - is not that article. Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Icewhiz's reasoning above. Topic is clearly notable as per Andrew Davidson's listed sources above. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 2 October 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. Tone 17:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Brand Solutions[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 13:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most references fail the test for intellectual independence, failing WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP. Marquardtika (talk) 03:29, 3 October 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. Tone 17:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Love (adventurer)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Has done a bit of climbing. Sources are mostly either dead or blogs. Ericoides (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hasn't this guy done TV work? He seems familiar to me for some reason, but ye, article feels promo. Govvy (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Notable expeditions & adventures" in the article lists a pilot show from 2006. The author of the article is User:Lo5707, who has to date made 27 edits in almost a year, mostly to this article or to the other David Love (geologist) article. One would assume that this user is also the subject of the article. Sources are his own commercial website, his sponsor's Twitter, a charity/adventure blog, a friend's blog, an Instagram post, an offline article from an army journal, and the one RS, the London Gazette, which gives his army promotions up to the rank of Major. Ericoides (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't get past GNG. Run-of-the-mill adventurer. The only two things that are vaguely notable are his pilot documentary and the expedition to Sudan. Neither has garnered much attention as far as I can see. SpinningSpark 22:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete London Gazette helps towards notability, but this feels WP:PROMO and there doesn't seem enough towards WP:GNG. It's hard to find any sources on the web also. Govvy (talk) 20:20, 1 October 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. As the editors pointed out, there is little sourced content in this article apart from the dictionary definition. I would be willing to redirect or merge if a proper target is found. Tone 17:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albanophile[edit]

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

Just a dictionary definition with unsourced list of "notable albanophiles". Qbli2mHd (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a WP:DICDEF plus a WP:OR list which falls foul of WP:BLP. SpinningSpark 11:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherently notable topic, part of Template:Cultural appreciation with plenty of similar articles. I easily discovered and added one more Albanophilie (Pope clement XI). There are plenty of sources on Albanophilia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both WP:DICDEF and WP:OR stand. The definition from the french dictionary (the only source) is different from what the article says. Albanology and Albanophilia are two different things. We already have an article for Albanology.-Mondiad (talk) 17:10, 3 October 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 Alberto Hurtado University. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Reflection and Social Action (CREAS)[edit]

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

Promo for a service belonging to a university, fails WP:GNG. Part of Alberto Hurtado University without enough notability to warrant a separate article. The Banner talk 07:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alberto Hurtado University.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree that there is not enough here for a separate article, and merge seems a sensible option. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Alberto Hurtado University, it can have a section there as it is not independently notable enough for a standalone article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian cheese[edit]

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

Appears to be some kind of disambiguation page, where only one of the targets actually exists. – numbermaniac 07:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vorbee (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a list, not a disambiguation page, along the lines of List of French cheeses and List of English cheeses. Georgian cheeses may not be as extensive or notable as those, but there is still no reason we can't have a list of them. As for sourcing, their existence and Georgianness can be found in Encyclopedia of Jewish Food and The Georgian Feast: The Vibrant Culture and Savory Food of the Republic of Georgia. SpinningSpark 11:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cheese is a very important part of Georgian cuisine. The list needs to be expanded and better sourced, not deleted.--Kober^Talk 16:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Kober. Georgian cheese is quite diverse and a recognized part of the national cuisine; while the article clearly doesn't show that, it can with a bit of effort. And as @Spinningspark: notes, there are even English sources available, and I actually own The Georgian Feast, so will try to add something in the next while. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's a list, rather than a disambiguation page, and the topic meets WP:LISTN. I have added more sources to the article and expanded it a bit. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but could use work (and possibly a rename). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:35, 4 October 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. Tone 17:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Parker (actor)[edit]

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

Article created by the subject - not a single reference currently provided checks out - either dead links or links to pages with no mention of Parker. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and career listed at IMDb does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR Melcous (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Probably the COI account, Publicist01 (talk · contribs), can be blocked for the username alone, which makes the promotional intent here transparent. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on multiple dead links, no substantial coverage of the subject, and a Google search that turned up no independent sources, this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Also, the article sorely fails notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:04, 30 September 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. Tone 17:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Mowl[edit]

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

Fails WP:YOUNGATH. Subject is a high school bowler who has won some junior bowling tournaments and garnered some local news coverage. Typically the community does not regard junior athletes as notable absent an unusually high level of coverage extending beyond local and or some significant claim above and beyond junior athletic accomplishments. I'm having a hard time finding anything that would make me believe this individual merits an encyclopedia article. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete No major accomplishments that would automatically show notability. Local routine sports reporting fails to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 4 October 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. Michig (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Line-Up Changes on AT&T U-verse from the 2010s[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE dmartin969 03:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero-sourced minutia (capitialized NOTTVGUIDE above for dmartin, no other refactoring otherwise). Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we've long since established that we don't do anything like these lists, because we're not a TV guide, and these types of changes aren't really what we're going for either, especially without sources. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --John M Wolfson (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE and also unsourced and useless trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, data table completely violates WP:NOTDIR. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:11, 30 September 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. Per WP:CSD#G7, by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Verizon FIOS Channels[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE dmartin969 02:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination); not even the right list anyways. Nate • (chatter) 03:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This should've been PRODed or CSDed instead since I don't see how anyone can contest this...Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; list content notwithstanding, as noted above, we've long since established that we don't do these lists, because we're not a TV guide. And the point of this really being better suited for either PROD or speedy deletion is quite valid, because this might actually qualify for G7 speedy deletion: creator Yahirdupres78 (talk · contribs) immediately blanked it (which was a non-formatted list of AT&T U-Verse channels, not that of Verizon Fios — and maybe it should be noted that the contents of the creator's userpage are presumably what was intended to be at this list), and it was technically the blank page that actually got AfD'd. --*WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A3 (no content) as page has been blanked. Ajf773 (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as current company channel lineups most certainly violate WP:NOTDIR per past AfD putcomes. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:01, 30 September 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. Michig (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Line-Up Changes on Verizon FiOS from the 2010s[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE dmartin969 02:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero-sourced minutia. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, someone should warn a creator of these TV guide articles to stop doing this...Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we've long since established that we don't do anything like these lists, because we're not a TV guide, and these types of changes aren't really what we're going for either, especially without sources. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per a similar article w/ AT&T, and possible (polite) reprimand of the creator (if same as creator of the AT&T list) per User:Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom. --John M Wolfson (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE and also unsourced and useless trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, current company channel lineups fail WP:NOTDIR. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:53, 30 September 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. No consensus to delete, therefore default keep. Merge or redirect are possible, discuss on the talkpage. Tone 17:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hirudiculture[edit]

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

Nigh-dictionary definition, and I am not finding significant usage of this term online. Probably not a common term. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Leech#In human culture. bd2412 T 01:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was certainly notable in the 19th century, hence still notable now per WP:NTEMP. 8-page article, French book on the subject, 11-page article, modern book giving a take on historic hirudiculture. SpinningSpark 01:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obscure but covered. Sources provided above should do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I think this is a minor subtopic of Leech and we could easily just merge to Leech#In human culture. There is little to write about the culture of leeches as a separate topic and few detailed sources: presumably any special 'recipes' are kept secret for commercial reasons. The existing section says pretty much all we're going to get. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per User:Chiswick Chap.--John M Wolfson (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is a stub, but as others have said, it can be worked on. —Mythdon 05:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: there is one !vote that is per your recommendation, which you have now deleted. Would you please explain where you now stands? It is more usual to strike a comment you want to retract to avoid this sort of confusion, especially after others have replied to it. SpinningSpark 12:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Leech or to Hirudo medicinalis - this is an inappropriate split about how to "farm" leeches. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 5 October 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. Tone 17:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Shacter[edit]

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

When an article about a photographer is "successfully deorphaned" merely by its addition to the article List of photographers, my hunch is that something's wrong. And so it turns out. Shacter is a skilled portraitist, but the world seems to have paid little attention (also try your search engine), and much of the content of this stub has been marked "Citation needed" since 2010. Hoary (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to have received the level of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agreed, my search engine says no. -Lopifalko (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't true that the world has paid little attention to Shacter. Definitely a successful working photographer with many credits in major publications, and who has been quoted as an expert in photography, but to meet WP:GNG she would have to be the main subject of significant coverage that is specifically about her. For photography or WP:ARTIST specific notability, she would have to have received a major award or made a unique contribution to her field or school or had a major solo show of her work in a significant museum or gallery. I'd support keeping if I saw a good faith citation of meeting any one of these criteria. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:10, 30 September 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) 20:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intouch Solutions[edit]

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

Promotional article on non-notable company - no real independant sourcing meeting WP:NCORP standards Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the main author of the article, and I would like to discuss the deletion proposal for the following reasons: 1) Notability: a) the company has 600+ employees with offices outside the United States; b) it is worth 110m USD (other companies in the Category:Management consulting firms of the United States are worth less); c) it is quoted in specialistic reviews of the healthcare consulting sector (see further); d) it won several business sector awards 2) Promotionality: I tried to write the article in the most neutral way, by using the information contained in articles from acknowledged and independant media (Bloomberg, Adnkronos, and specialistic reviews for the healthcare advertising sector (MM&M, PMLive and MedADNews). In case you find that some passage lacks neutrality, could you please show me which one? I will be happy to further neutralize it. --Ferdinando Scala (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the points you've addressed make the company notability - being quoted or being worth "x" (or other companies also not being notable) or winning some business sector awards - what makes the company notable is in depth coverage, of which it doesn't appear to be have. In regards to promotionality, phrases "innovative solutions" and the entire philanthropy section, which repeats company promotion like "Intouch created a plan to honor Srinivas’ memory, to spread a message of unity, and to answer those questioning that yes, they belong." and does not have any real independant sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your suggestions. I deleted the phrases you indicated - indeed they were not in line with any Wikipedia policy about style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdinando Scala (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick review of online sources show that there is ample coverage in the news to surpass the general notabiiity guideline. While the content seems somewhat promotional in nature, it's hard to write an article about a firm that doesn't have such measures. At worst, this is an editing issue from an article started by a relatively inexperienced editor (at least in this particular type of article) and some simple collaboration should clean it up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will welcome any suggestion about improving the article.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have WP:NCORP is so that there's enough indepth coverage so that it is possible to write an article that isn't promotional Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a replacement for a corporate web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:27, 8 October 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. Sufficient consensus that the subject is notable. Other concerns can be addressed by editing. Michig (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stafford[edit]

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

Notices and warnings present since 2011 and the content still remains with no references and not obvious sources on google Ameera Patel (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. pure advertising. cited to his own publications, none of which are een significant. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Bondegezou (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an antique, unsourced article, but Stafford is a sports writer for a large daily newspaper and his books get reviewed in other large daily newspapers. I searched in a news archive for "Ian Stafford" + book review. And started adding reviews, then came here instead to remind everybody that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and that we have lots of poorly sourced articles on notable people. It has been correctly tagged for sourcing since 2011. But sources exist, all that is needed is a willing editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. There are also several hundred library holdings of his books: [8] [9]. James500 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be sufficient WP:NEXIST from sufficiently reliable secondary sources to support GNG. Yes the article could be improved. Aoziwe (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This badly fails WP:PROMO/NPOV guidelines. He is at least marginally notable as an author. It's probably a keep and WP:TNT. SportingFlyer talk 06:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable sports journalist significantly mentioned by multiple reliable sources. GenuineArt (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Certainly needs a cleanup, but an award winning sports writer and I have heard of him also, read his works. Article should be able to pass GNG if updated. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep my google searches indicate he's passing basic at the minimum. Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 2 October 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. Tone 17:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore J. Salamone[edit]

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

This is an overtly promotional article for an individual with none of the sourcing needed to establish notablity. All of the sources mention him in passing and no other meaningful sources could be found in a Google search. In an edit history that dates back to April 2018, JBuckley93 has a grand total of seven edits, of which three relate to creating the nominated article for Salamone, two relate to his company and two relate to a DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Salvatore J. Salamone. The only mainspace link to the nominated article is from Saladax Biomedical (his company) and the only link to the company article is from his article. The article appears to be a WP:COI and has every appearance of an attempt to get this article promoted on Wikipedia's front page from an editor who can't possibly have figured out how to accomplish all of this in an edit history comprised of a handful of edits. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This subject fails GNG and all tests for biographies. It also reeks of undisclosed paid editing. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for your comments on the proposed deletion. Would it be possible to edit this article to be less promotional, before sending to deletion? Additionally, if the issue is notability, would it be sufficient to add the following news articles from Forbes and the local (Allentown, PA) news organization The Morning Call regarding Salvatore J. Salamone? These may help verify his notability within the fields of oncology and psychiatry, as the articles are from third party and non-self published sources. The articles can be found in a Google search for his name. (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- Forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/geristengel/2014/11/12/want-to-improve-chemotherapy-educate-your-doctor/
- The Morning Call article: http://www.mcall.com/business/players/mc-bethlehem-man-inventors-hall-of-fame-20161101-story.html

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 22:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC) Rewrite and Reduce: If JBuckley93 is willing to rework it, otherwise, Delete it, because it just reads like unsavory self-promotion that cannot justify its size. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 14:49, 1 October 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Lebewohl[edit]

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

Having searched online, I conclude that she is a non-notable author. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Her father Abe Lebewohl, looks notable enough for an article, but see WP:NOTINHERITED. Edwardx (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added some reviews of her cookbook from Publishers Weekly, Florida Times-Union, Palm Beach Post, and Lincoln Journal Star. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lot of critical attention for her book and I've found some biographical detail. However, since her father is also likely notable, it may make more sense to work on an article about the Deli and include the information from both Sharon and Abe's biography in that article. I would be happy to work on such an article if this closes as "delete" and merge Sharon into it with a redirect from her name. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. Hundreds of library holdings: [10] [11]. James500 (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject verifiably meets WP:AUTHOR#3 as creator or co-creator of a "well-known work" that is the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Bakazaka (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MV Global Mercy[edit]

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

@Strikerforce: Incompetent deprod by Andrew Davidson. Original prod reason by Strikerforce still stands, Article creation on this subject is too soon. » Shadowowl | talk 13:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:TOOSOON is an essay not policy nor guideline. And it talks mainly about movies and biographies while the topic here is a ship. It is a substantial vessel and was launched earlier this year. While it is still being fitted out, it's a big project which takes time to complete like HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) or Crossrail. Deleting it so that we can recreate it later would be a waste of time, like this vexatious nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From TOOSOON, For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources. Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article. This applies to... new products and any other topics about which facts have only recently emerged or are still emerging. (Emphasis added by me) So, our question is, is this ship a "new product", since it itself did not previously exist? Some may see that as a stretch, but I feel that it's a literal interpretation and is correct, which is why I originally applied TOOSOON in tagging the article PROD. However, established precedent for articles such as this shows that the "fitting out" stage is not necessarily too soon to create an article about a vessel of this size. So, recognizing that while disagreeing with it personally, I will remain neutral on this discussion. Strikerforce^Talk 16:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a proposed project that may never come to anything. This is a major ship, that is already at sea with the name on the side in huge letters.[12] It is still being fitted out but nevertheless is attracting coverage.[13][14]. It's not TOOSOON, rather, the nomination is TOOLATE. SpinningSpark 10:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the [15] ref shows the 3D rendering of the ship, this is not an actual photo ;-). But I agree with the rest.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not WP:TOOSOON, the ship is being actively constructed.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it takes 5-10 years to design and build a ship, this is almost complete and has zero possibility of being cancelled given the millions already spent. Szzuk (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deprodding was correct. This is not a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bharatiya 29 14:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments above regarding where we are in the process, since that's the argument for deletion, rather than the ship not being notable. /Julle (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not WP:TOOSOON BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, big ship, has sources, meets WP:GNG, not WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 4 October 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. No consensus to delete, therefore keep. A redirect can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 17:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Globex Trading System[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Most of the refs are from a single Wiki which is not reliable and only one other source. Contentious text sourced to its own web-site has been removed. Previously speedily deleted on 8th September Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a couple of references but it is debatable whether this topic should be more than a redirect to Chicago_Mercantile_Exchange#Electronic_trading which provides a succinct summary of the development of this platform. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable. While CME essentially has become Globex, this took a long time - and for two+ decades Globex ran concurrent to the pits with different contract sizes. In any event - this is the system on which most of the future contracts, worldwide by volume, are traded. Even a cursory google books search for "Globex", shows notability. Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Globex was set up in 1992 by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and provides an electronic trading platform for futures and option contracts. I think there is no doubt that it meets our notability criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicago Mercantile Exchange#Electronic trading, lots of passing mention, where is the substantive coverage. Important yes, but that doesn't make for notability. Stick with section in the CME article. --Bejnar (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, two refs in the article from The Economist, stopped looking after seeing them. Szzuk (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That counts as 1 reference. Do you have others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandals1 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Globex is certainly well-known, the problem is that there isn't much significant coverage of it. It seems like it should be notable, but I see lots of passing mentions and mentions in articles about the CME. I would have thought this would be a keep, but I don't see the necessary coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no other Wikipedia article that describes this system so I believe that it warrants having it's own article. There are not many good sources out there to reference so it may be a bit lite on detail. I ask everyone here to instead of marking for deletion, add to it to make the article more robust and acceptable. C62eu19 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Arts Commission[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the guidelines for notability under WP:ORG or WP:GNG as there is little coverage of an organization by this name in the context of St. Louis ("regional arts commission" "st louis"), and that coverage is local. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL local/regional arts council. Largoplazo (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NORG (or WP:GNG). While I'm sympathetic to the nominator's statement, I think this topic is covered significantly in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. In particular, the articles from St. Louis Public Radio and the St. Louis Post Dispatch deal with the topic in some depth and are independent and reliable (the Fox and CBS affiliates are less in-depth; the Riverfront Times is fine, but it's not quite the Post Dispatch). I don't think this topic falls within the spirit of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. It's the primary arts funder in a major US city; not the 11th garden beautification society in Bemidji... Ajpolino (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this discussion was brought to my attention in part by a talk page post from the page creator (though I would've seen it from article alerts anyway...). He's new and meant well. I've informed him of expectations regarding canvassing. Let's move along. Ajpolino (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - per WP:NONPROFIT. Expenditure of $6.4 million in tax money rightly attracts independent coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONPROFIT says the opposite of that: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead" (italics added). What it calls for is the antithesis of surmising the existence of such coverage from an arbitrary factor like tax expenditures. And it indicates that coverage outside the area is required, but I haven't found any. Largoplazo (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while coverage is overwhelmingly local, it is extensive and long-lived by local periodicals of record. While hard to find with news search due to constant mentions in local media, there is some non-local coverage eg this May in Art in America. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, refs look typical for this kind of organisation. Szzuk (talk) 17:09, 2 October 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.