< 23 January	25 January >

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Williams[edit]

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

Notability concerns. All the references are trivial mentions, and appearing in a junior-level national curling event is not enough to meet any NATHLETE guideline. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:NCURL, because didn't receive a medal at any of the listed tournaments. Though nice to see she was still playing in 2013/14 in the Rose City Curling Club League! ^[1] ManicSpider (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delte a non-notable curler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This curler is not notable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable person, should have been speedied. PlotHelpful (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Marks[edit]

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

A non-notable appointed minor state official who does not meet WP:NPOL. Sourcing is weak, with a number of primary sources. WP:GNG doesn't look to be met here. In addition, there are WP:BLP issues with regards to content on lawsuits she is apparently involved in which make this page border on an WP:ATTACK. Marquardtika (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor unelected state official who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The position she held is one that can get a person into Wikipedia if she can be reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but not one that guarantees her automatic inclusion rights just for existing — but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get her over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she had been the secretary of the department it might show notability, but not a deputy secretary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable official officeholder that doesn't satisfy WP:N guidelines. PlotHelpful (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Lyn[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just no substantial coverage for this director that I could find while looking for sourcing for her film or for herself in specific. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. PlotHelpful (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG at the least. No notable sources I could find. Skirts89 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arran Stewart[edit]

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

Quoted occasionally in news stories due to blockchain noise, but no substantial coverage about him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could only find passing mentions and nothing substantial. PlotHelpful (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2019 (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. What would usually be a pile-on of Keeps, but here is just a large number of !votes - more than sufficient referencing of the topic, (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Large numbers[edit]

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

A much more elaborate, but equally useless, companion of Small number, which is also up for deletion. AFAIK, this isn't a math term (Law of large numbers notwithstanding), and "large" is a matter of opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is not useless as it gets significant traffic -- about 100K views per year and that's a large number. And, in any case, that's an argument to avoid. What matters more is that the topic is notable. I was listening to a radio programme the other day which was talking about the nature of numbers and discussed the difficulty that humans and other species have with large numbers. And it's easy to find an entire book on the subject: The Lore of Large Numbers. That's published by the American Mathematical Society. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not useless, and exponentially ahead of Small number in quality (although perhaps not to the point of needing Knuth up-arrow notation to express same). The identification of specifically notable large numbers, like Graham's number and Skewe's number, and the discussion of different methods of nomenclature for such large numbers, like Conway chained-arrow notation, are topics that are eminently encyclopedic, and it makes sense for them to be addressed at a plenary level in one article. (Full disclosure: at least 20 of those views in any given year are mine; this is one of my favorite Wikipedia articles to read for geeky pleasure and as a lazy-afternoon rabbit-hole entry point. I am pretty sure I am not alone.) -Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: seriously large numbers are both interesting, and a legitimate field of mathematical enquiry. See, for example, [1], [2]. Subjects like ultrafinitism are also related. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YGBSM! Fundamental concept. Apparently the nominator is arithmetically challenged. No compliance with WP:Before. There are lots of sources at Google [3] and Google [4]. You will find a whole library full of books and articles dealing with this subject. No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment. That is at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on. The concept and the article are worth saving. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, you need to tone down your hyperbole and your Gscholar link gives me multiple reasons to doubt the extents of your mathematical expertise.∯WBG^converse 16:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. Your opinion and mine may differ on details, but it is still a "keep" nonetheless. This deletion discussion is a waste of valuable editor time and resources. You can take that to the bank. I Don't Like It is not a policy based reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst it may be tempting to make a comparison with small numbers; it's a poor one. Per Anomie (ping me for more sources).∯WBG^converse 16:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability requirements. Dream Focus 21:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But needs a large number of RS and a smaller number of examples. StrayBolt (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I was half-tempted to do a WP:NAC under criterion 3 of WP:SKCRIT - but maybe the nom did read the article, so AGF applies. (A few more inline citations wouldn't go amiss though.) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite an important article here. PlotHelpful (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2019 (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jane M. Gardner[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. The article relies entirely on primary sources, and WP:BEFORE searches are providing almost nothing independent, and no significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 22:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any independent, significant coverage either. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Keane Wallis-Bennett[edit]

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

I'm not sure that this meets WP:EVENT standards. Specifically I think it falls under the 4th point: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I don't see anything that suggests that there is "enduring significance" behind this. It received comment from the prime minister, but I don't think much significance exists beyond that. only (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tragic but unrelated to any larger notable event or issue. --Lockley (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe it meets WP:EVENTCRIT. Coverage is sustained, significant and diverse, with articles in late 2016 (over 2 1/2 years later) [5] and mid 2017, at the time of the enquiry (BBC [6], The Times [7], Edinburgh News [8], Sky News [9]). The BBC article says "Mr Gaw added: "Immediately after the incident in 2014, the council removed similar free-standing walls in its schools and subsequently safety advice was issued by the Scottish government advising all local authorities of the risks regarding these walls." Also, "The sheriff principal ... said a warning about freestanding walls should be reinforced. She said the Health and Safety Executive, in conjunction with the Scottish government, should ensure an assessment is made of the risk posed by these walls. This should be in conjunction with remedial measures where the walls cannot be safely and effectively removed." So the accident had a lasting impact (it resulted in changes (walls removed) and ongoing warnings of risks) over the whole of Scotland (nationally, not just the local region). RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while agree with Nom that this looked ROUTINE, I have to endorse User:RebeccaGreen's demonstration that it meets WP:EVENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My initial thought was probably delete, but the argument put forward by User:RebeccaGreen is a strong one, as it shows the event had a lasting and significant impact. Dunarc (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - beyond the sources in-article and found by RebeccaGreen, there is also her argument that the ongoing actions (I would note here that effects is less relevant, but actions is key) taken as a result make it distinct from a single event. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ace Combat characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has not much in the way of independent reliable sources such as to establish its general notability. I performed a WP:BEFORE search using the WP:VGSE ([10]) and found no amount of sources covering the concept of "Ace Combat series characters" as its own significant topic. I attempted to redirect the article to the series article Ace Combat but was reverted. If there is any need to have content on the specific characters, those should be covered in the specific articles about each game, but I only saw content sufficient for one character in the above search. Izno (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ace Combat characters do not meet GNG. Burn it with fire. TarkusAB^talk 22:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to meeting the WP:GNG or following WP:WAF. Just a massive chinch of unsourced observations about these games that belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia. Even if someone dig up sources, a WP:TNT deletion would warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per rationale above. Overly detailed and unencyclopedic. Eagleash (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs in Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship Training[edit]

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

Not notable. More a catalogue of courses. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia isn't a directory or catalogue of courses or education programmes. Ajf773 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773. This is not encyclopedic. Natureium (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Delete as per above, and I would also say this meets WP:G11 criteria for speedy deletion. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is indeed encyclopedic (like Medical Scientist Training Program), and there is room for improvement per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Prose versus lists. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, a platform where you can look up neutral life-changing-information efficiently and reliably. As to notability, I just tested at search.yahoo.com, and the results are just fine (this topic is NOT something nobody cares/talks about). Of course the article can link to living people and active institutions. The weird thing is, why is LARRY WOFORD in the beginning? WP:undue weight

I have three suggestions. Firstly, sort them into different countries (for Americans even if UK English is familiar, you still need to get the legal-paper-work done before flying to the UK for long-term training) (Countries may speak very little English). Secondly, alphabetical order (meaning "Craniofacial" is stated first, "Maxillofacial" is stated later). Thirdly, chronological order (meaning the older medical schools are stated first, the newer medical school are stated last). Tony85poon (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not encyclopaedic. It's just a list of courses. Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC) In the latest version, the article begins with a 5-sentence-introduction. After reading the intro, the reader can then decide "Oh wow! This is interesting to me" or "this does not concern me at all, I better read something else". Tony85poon (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[copy begin] Hospital General "Dr. Manuel Gea González" which is affiliated with the Escuela de Medicina de la Universidad Panamericana [es] (Translate to English, the School of Medicine of the Panamerican University) [finish copy]. It is not a stupid-list / catalogue / whatever-you-call-it anymore. It is relevant information tailor-made for people who live outside Mexico and don't speak the Spanish language. Tony85poon (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those who have doubts:

Are you sure that people in Hospital General "Dr. Manuel Gea González" perform surgery of that specific type? What if, it is only a place full of non-surgical doctors (physicians)?
How can you prove that the Hospital is affiliated with the University?

Answer: I barely speak Spanish (2nd most spoken). I don't have Spanish friends/ relatives. A Mexican is in a better position to find answers (the reliable source requirement) for the sake of the Article's reliability. If I were to try finding, it takes a lot of time. There is no reward for me editing Wikipedia, not worth the effort. I did have a similar experience with the Spanish language though. When I read about Deception Island, I saw this scientific station named after Gabriel de Castilla. I thought "Really? People in that Island speak Spanish?" With the help of google-translate, I understood the website (even though there is no English version of the website) which obviously contains information of a Spanish scientific station in that Island. As a Chinese, both English and Spanish are non-mother-tongue foreign languages to me. I stopped looking for a reliable source in English and straight-away inserted a link to that Spanish website as a reliable source in the 迪塞普遜島-article. Tony85poon (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that this article is essentially just a list of external links really pushes it over the edge for me in terms of being un-encyclopedic. Perhaps if the article were a more detailed description of the type of fellowship (rather than a list of fellowship programs), it could be encyclopedic, but for now - WP:TNT. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azeri style[edit]

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

Delete : Very poorly sourced, contains many wrong informations. Also, even the cited sources don't support many of the claims. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The interwiki links are convincing enough that Arezi style is notable and sourceable. The article needs work but should stay. --Lockley (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a genuine topic in the history of Iranian architecture, see e.g: [11], [12], [13]. Given the topic is real and arguably notable, flaws in the existing article are not a justification for deletion. SJK (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an old architectural style and has reliable secondary sources.فرهنگ2016 (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2019 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian O'Hanley[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG; fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NHOCKEY. Minor player who only succeeded in school/mid-professional level which isn't enough to pass our criteria. Being named to the ECHL All-Star Game (not First or Second All-Star Team) and Cincinnati Cyclones Defenseman of the Year is not considered a preeminent honour. Way off of the 200 game mark for AHL and being part of an NCAA championship team doesn't qualify him for NHOCKEY. All I can find is routine coverage of him regarding contracts and being named to the ECHL All-Star Game which is just WP:ROUTINE and not in-depth enough for GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: HickoryOughtShirt?4 said it all, and at this point and a couple hundred AfDs down the road, WP:DOLOVISCREATEDIT ought to exist. Ravenswing 06:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to Dolovis, when this article was created his all-star selection may well have met NHOCKEY. Not that it matters now. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Doesn't have the coverage to meet the GNG and the article, which is just a list of stats, fails to show he meets WP:NHOCKEY.Sandals1 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our riduculously low bar of notability for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable as above. --Lockley (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NHOCKEY. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VoiceoverPete[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - a Youtuber recently banned from Fiverr. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His rise to fame through the Fortnite video was notable within itself, but due to the close proximity between that and the time of his ban both were lumped together. Pewdiepie and Ninja both supported him after his ban, which evidenced that he was already well known within the gaming community before is ban. He was not a low profile individual to begin with, and I do believe that he will have long term notability as he has sort of become a staple within the YouTube gaming community. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 23:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is featured for other things in the news other than the Fiverr scandal. He passes WP:GNG as well and notability does not wear off. There should be much more of a reason to even begin to discuss a deletion. Handoto (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm generally inclined to think that the balance of evidence has to be on the side of BLP1E to justify removal of an otherwise sourced article. As I'm not confident of that, I think a Keep is the logical choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3's a Charm[edit]

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

The page is sourced entirely to AllMusic/Discogs/Amazon etc. I looked for RS and couldn't find anything covering it. The content does contain a claim to notability under WP:NMUSIC criterion 6 - that a song from the album was in rotation on radio stations - but the assertion is unsourced (and I'm not clear on whether notability for the album would be inherited from a single anyway). I considered redirecting to the band, but we appear not to have an article on them. If reliable sources can be found I'd be happy to withdraw. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By policy the album should probably be speedy deleted because there is no article for the group. The existence of the group and this album are mentioned at the article for their one notable member, Jaimee Foxworth and that should be enough. And just to make things confusing, there is a different group also called S.H.E. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

doomsdayer520 Can you expand on that? NMUSIC says that an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. I assumed it would need to come here for discussion of GNG, but if there's a policy that says albums by bands without article should be CSDed, I'd like to know for future reference. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of Speedy Deletion Rule A9, which says: This applies to any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. ...... Traditionally, this has meant that if the musician does not have an article, their albums are considered non-notable and can be deleted immediately. This can create a conflict with the NMUSIC rule that you cited, but I think that for this particular album, there is now a tougher imperative for finding notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that - I see what you're getting at. One to remember. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the single really meets NMUSIC criterion 6, then it should have an article, but I don't believe that the album should inherit that notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:05, 31 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Adam (host)[edit]

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

Article about completely non-notable individual. A google search yields no coverage in secondary sources, only his profiles at places he worked on. It was written by his wife and was the only contribution made by that account. Its clear to see that this person has done nothing noteworthy. N Ø 18:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article looks like an attempted promotion. Most sources found online are promotional listings in industry databases and the like, and brief mentions that he was present at some local event, but there is very little evidence of independent notability from reliable media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local market radio DJs are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but nothing stated here gets him over the "special notability case" bar he has to clear and none of it is properly referenced to reliable source coverage in real media independent of his own employers for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator and above Thalium (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2019 (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. No prejudice against creation of an article about the building if the structure is notable beyond its use by the Masons. RL0919 (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia Lodge No. 85[edit]

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

Rational: Seems to me that this fails WP:GNG. There is a single referenced source - a 1929 book from what appears to be a reliable publisher. I've searched for additional sources - I found lots of mentions in directories, trivial mentions in news articles, and what appear to be press releases in the local press, but nothing significant and independent. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. Maybe its because most Masonic lodges tend to shy away from the press, but I found much the same -- the closest thing to news was about some work they did fixing up a graveyard in Stamford. I can't see how this could pass GNG unless someone has sources that aren't on the Internet. Markvs88 (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in this post on my talk page, Finch1640 (who seems to be connected to this lodge) indicates that the existing source on the page was written by a member of the lodge. I have no way of determining whether that is true, but if so it does call the independence of the single cited source into question, and cast further doubt on the notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic could be more clearly Wikipedia-notable if it focused upon covering the historic building(s) of the Masonic lodge, including the Issac Mead building which is a contributing building in the National Register of Historic Places-listed Greenwich Avenue Historic District. Per description by User:Finch1640 at Commons file "Isaac Mead Building.jpg", a photo scanned from a 1926 book: "The Isaac Mead building still stands in Greenwich today. It was the meeting place for Acacia Lodge for a good period of time in the second half of the 19th-century. Uploaded: 7 February 2018 by Finch1640. Source:1926 book on Masonry in Greenwich". I found my way to that from searching at Commons for Acacia Lodge, then browsing in Greenwich historic district articles. The NRHP document provides not a whole lot about it, but the district includes "ISAAC L. MEAD BUILDING, 1878 / Tudor Revival remodeling, 1910" Its address is "2-8 Greenwich Avenue (same as 6 West Putnam)". In the district, "the earliest surviving brick building is the Isaac Mead Building, which occupies the sharply angled corner at the head of the district." The building is shown in Photo #7 of accompanying photos.
Redirect to List of Masonic buildings in the United States#Isaac Mead Building is an option less than deletion, which would be appropriate if the article is not further developed. If the article is further developed, then "Keep". Note the article could be improved by adding an NRHP contributing building infobox. I justed added the lodge to the list-article, anyhow. Keeping the edit history at the redirect would enable re-creation, if/when more coverage of the historic lodge is uncovered. --Doncram (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BRANCH. While the Issac Mead Building may be notable enough for an article... the article under discussion is about the local chapter of Freemasons that (years ago) met in the building (ie Acacia Lodge No. 85). That local chapter is not notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment In a series of posts on my talk page, the original author has asked several times for us just to go ahead and delete the article. It's slightly confusing because he's using three different accounts interchangeably, and not signing his posts, but it does seem to be the same person. I'm not sure whether that qualifies as a vote for the purposes of this discussion (or even a request for a G7 speedy); he seems reluctant to post here, just wants this to go away. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. Too often Wikipedia treats new editors badly, including by immediately nominating all of their edits (often concentrated in one or two new articles that are marginal) for deletion. It is overwhelming for anyone new. There ought to be an automatic pass for such situations, whereby the new one or two articles are Kept in mainspace for one year, perhaps put into a category that brings them up for reconsideration when the year is over. This is one of those cases, where the topic is at least on the margin notability-wise, the creator is not up to dealing with the onslaught of negative attention even though it might be saved by a more experienced campaigner, and there would be no harm done (no big precedent set, no reader or editor confusion) if this would just be kept around. The cost in terms of destroying newbie goodwill is high; Wikipedia is declining because of this. --Doncram (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point Domcram, and while I wholly agree that does happen to an extent, at the same time that editor did begin a new article with blatant wp:copyvio. There's warnings aplenty regarding that (as I know you are aware), especially considering the bulleted points at the top of the page when creating a new article. So IMO a year might be a little too long... but a month wouldn't be unreasonable. Markvs88 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doncram in principle, and hope that I wasn't too bitey in this instance; I just wanted to note that it appears in this case it's not an entirely new user. From the talk page correspondence I linked to above, they have at least three accounts going back as far as 2015 (admittedly with few edits over that time); User:Honeywell1640, one of those accounts, has a PROD notification about Acacia 85 on their talk page - the PROD seems to be about notability, but it actually ended up being deleted under G12 (copyright infringement) - they've been down this same road before. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. AfD has been relisted twice, but this is a pretty weak consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard S. Sheehy Jr.[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:BASIC. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. Name checks, quotations and fleeting passing mentions do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this was a notable position we would see more coverage than we do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject's historical role is discussed in "The Last Smith: Presidents and the Transformation of the RLDS Church" by William D. Russell, Journal of Mormon History Vol. 34, No. 3 (Summer 2008), pp. 46-84, also in "Grant McMurray and the Succession Crisis in the Community of Christ" by William D. Russell, Dialogue Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 2006), pp. 27-56, also in ”Community of Christ's Encounter with Asia: Challenges of Relevance, Pluralism, and Indigenization" by Steven L. Shields, The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal Vol. 33, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2013), pp. 1-44, also (briefly) in "Community of Christ's Evolving Approach to Mission" by Steven L. Shields, Journal of Mormon History Vol. 39, No. 2 (Spring 2013), pp. 139-164. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the potential sources presented by Bakazaka?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Salmon[edit]

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

Notability tag from 2013 is right. You already know the deal with FMD, it’s not a RS. None could be found. WP:NMODEL. Trillfendi (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some can be found in newspaper/periodical databases, which are the places to look for coverage of a non-superstar who worked in the 1990s. But basically it's two versions of a Canadian Press NewsWire story, and a Seventeen profile:

Heiman, Carol (14 July 1995). "Island Beauties - Is it the air? The wonderful climate?". Times Colonist. p. 1. is a 1100+word front page story, about 85% of which is specifically about Salmon.
Litwin, Grania (8 Aug 1995). "Her face, her fortune; At 19, B.C.'s Carrie Salmon is on her way to mega-model status". The Gazette. p. C.4. is a 650-word profile on her travels, appearances in magazines, and growing career (at the time). It also refers to a profile of Salmon in a French magazine, but does not specify which one.
"Personal style: Carrie". Seventeen. Vol. 52, no. 11. 1993. pp. 122–123. which is a text/photo profile of her personal style.

Bakazaka (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. MarkH21 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revised, see later comment. MarkH21 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Models are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because an indiscriminate directory of models technically verifies that they exist. For a model whose most notability-approaching work was in the 1990s, possible media coverage might not Google very well, so this could potentially be recreated if somebody is able to dig up enough archived media coverage about her to get her over WP:GNG, but Bakazaka is correct that what they found isn't enough to do that. It takes considerably more media coverage to get a person over the bar if the notability criterion you're shooting for is "passes GNG because media coverage exists" than it does if you're shooting for something on the order of "won a major award for her work". Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To meet WP:NMODEL, we need reliable verification that she did do shows for the brands named in the article. To meet WP:GNG, we'd need SIGCOV in IRS. I think we would find both, particularly the former, if we had access to offline sources. Online, as well as the 1993 and 1995 sources Bakazaka found, I also found:

The New Yorker, Volume 73, Issues 1-6, 1997 [14], a snippet view that verifies that she modelled for Dior.
The Times Colonist also had a story in 1993 (18 March, pages C1 and C2) [15], 'Saanich teen: a role model', about the Seventeen profile, names her school, how she got to New York and then to Paris, had already modelled for Seventeen, Marie-Claire France and Italian Glamour.
The Times Colonist again, 3 April 1994, p. M4 - a paragraph in an article, which gives the information that she had also appeared in Vogue and Harper's Bazaar by then. [16]

So those sources confirm some information in the article, and could add more. The 1995 article also verifies magazines and mentions a brand, L'Oréal, not yet included in the WP article. Overall, I would say there are enough sources to verify that she does meet WP:NMODEL, and WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find the sources Rebecca posted enough to meet either WP:NMODEL (only a Dior verification, not enough) or WP:GNG (passing mentions or not WP:SIGCOV which requires multiple significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in detail). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to hopefully get more discussion about the sources proposed by RebeccaGreen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. Revised previous vote on the basis of the subject appearing to meet WP:GNG based on the Montreal Gazette and Times Colonist sources given here, although I cannot verify the sources themselves nor whether they're really significant coverage as I do not have access. I'm not convinced the subject meets WP:NMODEL, but that's irrelevant if she meets GNG. The material from these sources need to be incorporated into the article. MarkH21 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable model who fails WP:NMODEL. A few articles in local newspapers and passing mentions in others are not significant coverage that shows that the wider world has taken any notice of her. That she has appeared in fashion magazine is pretty much run-of-the-mill for a model. Hzh (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2019 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OviLex[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails GNG/NCORP. Bordorline promotional. SD0001 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a relatively large company that makes popular games on Android and iOS. There is a similar article on SCS Software. In the meantime, I'll find more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:4872:8600:5434:7A32:496E:784D (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam-like, with weak sourcing that includes Twitter, Facebook and blogs. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is poorly written, which would not merit deletion. However, there are very few, if any secondary sources that support this companies notability. The only sources I could find even mentioning OviLex were promotional in nature, and written about the video games they create, not talking about the company itself. Jcmcc (Talk) 10:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find other sources that relate to the company itself. However please consider other wikipedia articles that do not have references, rather than targeting this one. In the meantime, I have sent an email to the company's website requesting a detailed company history.(Talk)
- Right, because a company-emailed company history just screams “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. - Biruitorul ^Talk 10:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article just doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2019 (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. —Cryptic 21:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahat Ahmad[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Also a COI may well be present. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am sure I have been here before.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Non-notable. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 18:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:GNG, non-notable individual and no coverage, no need to make this a long process. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to give them a chance.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that chance is now ended, speedy delete.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is in favour of deletion on the grounds of not passing WP:GNG or WP:NPOL and the lack of reliable sources at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Forde[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. Article created by a member of his campaign. Џ 14:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, but seems to meet WP:GNG (e.g. 1, 2, ...). Should be cleaned up, though. --Ruhri Jörg 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete political candidates who do not meet the guidelines for politicians should not be kept on the misleading view that lots of coverage in the news is enough to meet GNG. Wikipedia is not meant to include all people who ran for office, and yet we could for any political candidate find enough information to claim passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving as a senior advisor in the White House could get him an article if he could be reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG for it, but this is extremely dependent on primary and unreliable sources (content published by his own employers, YouTube and Vimeo videos, sources where he's the bylined author of the content rather than its subject, etc.) rather than reliable source media coverage about him — and even the sources which are real media mostly aren't about him, but just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being primarily about something or someone else. And no, campaign-specific coverage does not magically GNG a non-winning candidate for political office either, as every candidate in every election can always show some of that — if "some campaign coverage exists" were in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate from NPOL on the grounds that they'd passed GNG instead, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would literally mean nothing anymore. So no, none of the sourcing here is solid enough to make him notable: the key to making a candidate notable enough for an article is to show that either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a candidate per se, or (b) he got so much more coverage than other unsuccessful candidates also got that he's got a credible claim to his candidacy being a special case — but neither of those things are in evidence here at all, and the simple existence of some campaign coverage is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional campaign article. Fails WP:NPOL and the coverage of him is simply because he ran for office, and I don't see anything non-WP:ROUTINE in the article itself. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 28 January 2019 (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 Hatstand. Clear consensus that this is a duplicative term (future Mathematics aside) (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hall tree[edit]

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

First, Twinkle seems to be broken. Does everything but post the content here. Maybe it's just me? Anyway:
The most that can be said about this article is WP:ITEXISTS. There are currently no sources in the article, with the sole one having been removed last year for lacking relevance and other issues, and a search on Bing and Google reveals nothing other than companies describing their product as such. The article itself reads more as dictionary definition than an encyclopedia entry. Overall, I am nominating it for deletion on grounds of lack of notability.
However, I am a bit confused on this topic; there might be no specific guidelines for products or product classes, but I still wish to get clarification as to whether a similar matter exists for this as does flora and fauna, in terms of automatic notability, and hence why I brought it here rather than directly to prod. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interestingly, there is a minor field of mathematical study called Hall Bases (part of Combinatorics), as part of which some journal articles have been written on Hall Trees and Hall Words.^[17] These would probably be better under a general article "Hall Bases", but as it stands it appears the obscure mathematical concept of Hall Trees holds more notability than these Hall Trees. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hatstand. My UK dictionary says "hall tree" is a mainly US variant of "hall stand", and "A Short Dictionary Of Furniture" intimates that hatstands are a type of hall stand. Whatever, they only need one article, and the best one currently seems to be at Hatstand. Coat rack is another unreferenced one that should be redirected there, and also coat stand which currently points to coat rack.--Pontificalibus 12:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redrect to Hatstand, and add a couple of words there to indicate that they are sometimes known as hall trees. If anyone ever wants to create Hall tree (mathematics), we could reconsider the redirect/add a disambiguation link. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hatstand as above. --Lockley (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uttam Khobragade[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. Article based mostly event notability Wikipedia:BIO1E or news for scams, which is not a criteria for inclusion in Wiki. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and Wikipedia:Too much detail also applies here. Strong delete Jethwarp (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 09:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks - I was just going thru page history and it seems that page was originally created by person himself in 2009. See link [18] the first line of page says Uttam Khobragade is the incumbent General Manager of BEST the user who created is User:Gmbest (obviously General Manager of BEST). Jethwarp (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable in their own right. Multiple media outlets covered him and the controversies surrounding him. The fact that the person who created the page had an COI doesn't come in the picture since very little of the original prose still remains. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 09:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs serious editing to eliminate current COI and PROMO issues but he passes GNG. GPL93 (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2019 (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Hill Women's Forum[edit]

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

Most of the subject's coverage comes from Beacon Hill Times, thus lacking significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains^(talk) 02:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing wrong with local coverage, but the coverage in Beacon Hill Times fails WP:ORGIND, either promoting an event (e.g. 1) or being written by a non-independent author who is listed as a speaker at the group's events (e.g. 2). --Pontificalibus 09:08, 24 January 2019 (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. Concept appears to be notable even if it does not relate to any accepted form of medicine. RL0919 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information-theoretic death[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a dictionary definition of a neologism used primarily by the pseudoscience of cryonics. Sources are either in-universe or tangential. The mainstream term for this concept is: death. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cryonics, protect redirect - the sources are bad, and are an attempt to create notability where there isn't really any. In particular speculative single papers do not pass WP:MEDRS - the term isn't quite "coatrack", but it is an attempt to refbomb with bad sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The refbombed para has been removed as a WP:MEDRS violation, per the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary definition – see WP:DICDEF, which explains the difference between a short article and a dictionary entry which focusses on a particular word – its etymology, grammar, spelling, &c. Moreover, the definition of death is not as simple as the nomination suggests. See brain death which goes into detail about this, distinguishing between death of the brainstem and the cerebrum, for example. The topic by this title gets a reasonable level of hits on Google Scholar and so seems notable enough for our purpose. Note also that similar issues arise with computers and so we have pages such as data erasure. Note also that deletion on Wikipedia doesn't actually mean loss of the data – the information is just restricted to admins who can readily make it available again. Note also that, when people die, their online existence and data is increasingly preserved. For example, Wikipedia accounts and user pages are normally kept when an editor dies – see digital afterlife. So, given all these angles and considerations, we should prefer alternatives to deletion per our policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't sound like a policy-based keep reason at all - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:DICDEF, WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE are three separate policies. David Gerard did not appear to cite any policies in his !vote. So, that's 3-0. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Restore See Articles for Deletion/Information-theoretic death. The attempt to gut the article and remove all the sources and here is an attempt to preempt this discussion; and thereby thwart WP:Consensus. It is a Self-fulfilling prophecy. He is doing by indirection that which he cannot do by direction.

No compliance with WP:Before. There are lots of sources at Google Books and Google Scholar. You will find a whole library full of books and articles dealing with this subject. No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment. That is at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on. The concept and the article are worth saving. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not "gut", just get back to WP:MEDRS with no WP:SYN. What I am looking for is any evidence of currency other than the original coiner of the term, other than in the corpsicle community. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Walt Disney~~ [Sorry, he was cremated.] Ted Williams and FM-2030 "Cryogenically Frozen 5 who and and 5 who want to". says you are 'wrong', or he will when he is thawed out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears a nonsense response - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was in keeping with "corpsicle community" which appears to be a nonsense pejorative defamation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read more sci-fi - which is, incidentally, the one field where this is taken seriously. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The collated sources were a WP:MEDRS violation - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We had an extended discussion of this article at the first AfD about 2 1/2 years ago. The article was cleaned up to a well-referenced stub and the consensus was to keep the article. I see nothing between then and now that would change that consensus. This is obviously not a dicdef, as it is all about the philosophical concept of information theoretic death and its meaning and impact, not lexicographic information. As a philosophical concept, it has been discussed by neuroscientists and connectionist philosophers; I can pull sources for this from the first AfD if you like. Yes, cryonics folks, too, but by now it has broader impact. That MEDRS has any bearing on this is absurd, as reading say, the connectome to recover a person or their mind, is pure science fantasy, far outside of medicine. It would be like complaining about religious folks who define death as 'the soul leaving the body' as non-mainstream medicine and too fringey to keep. The first AfD found this topic to be notable, and the sources sufficient to support a short article; these still hold. Hence, keep. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 20:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the National Review defining it. [19] Also Wired (magazine) [20]. It is a real thing. How much valid information can be in the article? If too short then start a merge discussion. But don't delete it. Dream Focus 14:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not an article about any practical form of human medicine..It says nothing about he prevention or therapy of any disease. It's speculation, but notable speculation. MEDRS is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But entry needs expanding to be more useful than just a definition.--Davidcpearce (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The concept is notable, whether editors like it or not. Article needs lots of work, though. If it can't be readily expanded, a redirect to Cryonics or to Brain death might do. — JFG ^talk 15:45, 31 January 2019 (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. Lack of ongoing significant coverage. RL0919 (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis[edit]

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

This article was speedily deleted per WP:G4 in view of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Katelyn Davis. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 January 8 there was no consensus about whether this was correct, so we're at AfD. This is a procedural nomination, I'm neutral. Sandstein 07:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate to say it like this but this generation sharing death isn’t particularly notable anymore, in itself. Trillfendi (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship isn’t going to help reduce suicide rates. It’s a problem and we should talk, spread awareness about it, not hide from it, because it happens more often than someone would think. It’s the reality, whether we like it or not. Nterix (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much every policy reason given at the original AFD was wrong or at least dubious: WP:BLP1E means you name the article after the event, not the person (which has been done), and is not anyway primarily a delete rationale. The assumed legal problems with this article do not actually exist, neither in the US nor in the EU. There are questions about the persistence of this story but no doubt that it was widely covered at the time, so saying that it fails WP:GNG is at least questionable. So why am I still voting delete on this? Because I support USER:Collect's viewpoint that it is simply irresponsible to maintain an article on this subject so we should WP:IAR and delete. FOARP (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's "irresponsible to maintain an article on this subject" or that it might "encourage similar events" seems to be poor reasoning, or at least it sets a bad precedent. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Should we delete the article about the Columbine Massacre because it might encourage school shootings, or delete the article about Nazism because it might encourage genocide? Wikipedia articles are factual and non-sensational. Now, it is true that if this article were written in a tabloid like manner (it's not, but let's suppose it were) then that would be an issue to correct. However even that wouldn't be an argument to delete the article, but rather just to correct its phrasing. But about your concerns, Katelyn's livestreamed death did encourage Facebook and others to improve detection and reporting, so it's not likely that a similar incident will ever happen and go viral like this again. Unlike the various other Category:Bullying_and_suicide deaths, this is truly a unique and noteworthy one-time event. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject, while meeting WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:SUSTAINED. The only references to this individual or event after the immediate period are in passing when news articles discuss similar occurrences. Some have noted this is borderline, and though I dispute this I will note that as a sensitive subject I feel we should err on the side of not notable in such cases. I will also note that while I sympathize with the concerns brought up User:FOARP and others, AfD is not the place to be writing policy; WP:IAR should only be called upon when there is no clear rule to deal with the situation and should not be used to overrule existing rules, and I will also note that Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, and thus while this is a sensitive subject, and a part of me agrees with you that this sort of article would be best off Wikipedia lest it encourage similar events, a decision based on this would not be in line with the goals or spirit of Wikipedia. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to meet WP:SUSTAINED too, which says "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". Here are some later appearing examples:

3 months later: Deep Nerd Magazine (The Bullying Awareness Company)'s article contains one of the more in-depth considerations of this event: https://deepnerdmagazine.com/this-is-where-i-hang/
5 months later: This event has helped influence Facebook policy: https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dad-irish-teen-who-took-10356470
9 months later: This might not be considered a WP:RS, but it is another detailed consideration of the case and its impacts: https://extranewsfeed.com/what-america-should-learn-from-live-streamed-suicides-aba2c5b754e4
1 year later: This is only a passing mention, but it shows that even when talking about other suicides or related topics much later, Katelyn's high-profile livestreamed suicide still comes to mind: https://thenextweb.com/facebook/2017/12/06/facebook-already-won-the-war-for-your-mind-now-it-wants-your-children/
1.5 years later: The criminal investigation into Katelyn's death finally ends, with no prosecutions. This should also help address the WP:BLPCRIME concerns some have raised: http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/region/despite-allegations-no-one-to-prosecute-in-teen-suicide/article_7867f910-6ce2-11e8-8631-a3891b690aa2.html
1.8 years later: The book "You Are Not Human: How Words Kill" doesn't just focus on her death, but also talks about how Katelyn was "catfished" in her other videos: https://books.google.com/books?id=Hp5qDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT180&dq=%22Katelyn+Nicole+Davis%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju-MWJguzfAhVFxoMKHbt7A-UQ6AEwAHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=173&f=false
2 years later: The introduction to the recently published in 2019 print book "Everything You Need to Know About Suicide and Self-Harm" starts out describing Katelyn's case, since it's so iconic: https://books.google.com/books?id=1umCDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&dq=%22Katelyn+Nicole+Davis%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju-MWJguzfAhVFxoMKHbt7A-UQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Katelyn%20Nicole%20Davis%22&f=false
2 years later: Death metal band "Vitriol" uses Katelyn's last words in a music video. Many of us find this usage to be repulsive or at least in very poor taste, but still it's an example of the event's ongoing influence upon popular culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN8zSTG35u0 Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[21] was published shortly after the event. [22] only mentions her very briefly and does not support the assertion that the case influenced Facebook policy. [23] indeed looks like an unreliable source. The books are better but still devote very little space to her and only mention her to give a specific example of a wider topic, which suggests to me that we shouldn't have a standalone article on the topic. We don't have an article on the heavy metal band so I doubt they're exactly well known. Hut 8.5 07:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as originally indicated, with the same reasoning. Collect (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that what's notable is the topic of Facebook and its responses to suicide (live-streaming of, or posts about suicidal intentions). This young woman's suicide was one instance reported in media which urged Facebook to change its policies (eg this Guardian article [24] which quotes a Facebook response less than 2 weeks after her death "We’ve reviewed the share you reported for showing someone injuring themselves and found that it doesn’t violate our Community Standards.") This ABC News (Australia) article in mid 2017 [25] discusses Facebook's policies in regards to suicide without mentioning this particular suicide; this article, also mid 2017 [26], discusses another suicide livestreamed on fb, which fb did remove but 6 hours afterwards, by which time it had been shared on other platforms; this New York Times article from December 2018 [27] is about Facebook's new practice of reporting of suicide attempts to emergency services. So ideally, I would say Merge the basic details of this article to an article about eg Facebook response to suicide posts. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Facebook have nothing to do with this. It is “Live.me” application. It was uploaded on Facebook later on, but we cannot blame on its policies because of user’s fault, so merging article to Facebook is not the greatest idea, when original suicide video was live streamed on other platform. I removed from article Facebook (somehow I did not notice it). Nterix (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. The topic of Child suicide is certainly notable (I'm amazed to see that's a redlink), but individual ones are not, regardless of the amount of sensational press they generate. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that an event got significant coverage during a short spate of media interest does not mean we can have an article on it. For that it needs to have sustained coverage. The only source cited in the article which was not part of the initial flurry of media interest is an article published by an Irish tabloid five months later in which it is briefly mentioned, this is not evidence of sustained coverage. In the linked DRV discussion there were a couple of links to books which mentioned it in passing as an example of a modern social phenomenon, I don't think that's sufficient either. I'm happy for the topic to be covered as part of an article on Facebook and suicide or suicide and the internet but we don't seem to have such a thing.
There is also a serious BLP concern with the article. It makes several very serious accusations against living people. While it doesn't name names any more it is clear from the wording that only a few people could have done what is alleged. Per WP:BLPCRIME we shouldn't be doing this in the absence of a conviction. The article does say that the police opened an investigation into these accusations, but it doesn't say what the outcome of it was, presumably because it's too low profile to be reported. As a result the suspicion of guilt is left dangling in the article indefinitely. Hut 8.5 21:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't making any accusations. It's merely repeating points that other secondary sources have reported about. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say that you MUST exclude accusations, but rather that editors should consider not mentioning them, or at least be careful in their wording, since it's indeed a sensitive matter. At any rate, the accusations aren't relevant to whether the article should be kept or deleted. We can easily remove or rephrase the sensitive parts of the article. Note that there has been an actual conviction related to this case, which happened recently so it hasn't yet been added to the article. <redacted per BLP> Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hut 8.5, I would like to ask you as an administrator with many years of experience, to let us know how could we change the article to meet WP:NOTNEWS requirements, because it was already edited many times by different editors and somehow it is still not good enough.
In my perspective, it meets provided requirements, so if you could, please help us to understand what kind of words or sentences do we need to replace, it definitely be more helpful than voting to delete the whole article. Or is it because of provided links? I did not quite understand. I personally don’t find WP:SUSTAINED valid, since it got many attention and still attracts people’s attention. Nterix (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of editing the article. We don't delete articles because of the wording of the article can be improved, in the vast majority of cases. The problem here is with the subject of the article, and if the objection is valid that means that any other article about her would have the same problem. The best way to refute these concerns would be to point to reliable sources which devote substantial coverage to the case and which were written some time after the events. That would show that the event has had lasting impact. Alternatively you could point to some other way in which the case has had lasting impact, such as legislative changes it led to, but we would need specifics and supporting reliable sources. Hut 8.5 11:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You just accused a named living person of driving a young girl to commit suicide, with no supporting sources at all. (Your link doesn't even mention Katelyn Nicole Davis). If that's your BLP standard then you absolutely should not be editing BLPs. The BLP policy applies here as well as in the article. Hut 8.5 11:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but just pointing out an actual conviction related to the case (even if it's not a conviction directly ABOUT the case). <redacted> My point here isn't to say that some form of this information should actually be added to the article, but rather that it's an aspect of the case that editors should be aware of. The whole "online dangers to children from potential predators" is another point around the event that has attracted attention to it, and can give people impassioned opinions about the case. I agree with you that it's important for Wikipedia to be strictly factual and held to the highest standards. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Above is written: "The article does say that the police opened an investigation into these accusations, but it doesn't say what the outcome of it was, presumably because it's too low profile to be reported. As a result the suspicion of guilt is left dangling in the article indefinitely." Actually, the result of the 1.5 year long investigation was most definitely reported, but just hasn't been mentioned in this article since the investigation was still ongoing. To avoid suspicion of guilt, appropriate text and the following reference should probably be added to the article: http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/region/despite-allegations-no-one-to-prosecute-in-teen-suicide/article_7867f910-6ce2-11e8-8631-a3891b690aa2.html Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many other youth suicide pages similar to this one on Category:Bullying_and_suicide. There are also other filmed suicide pages such as Suicide of Kevin Whitrick which has been deemed notable enough to easily survive its own [deletion proposal]. This page should exist because it's a high profile event in both categories: A unique case of a youth suicide that was filmed, and which literally millions of people saw on social media. (Technically, that makes this the most watched suicide in world history.) It seems unusual to focus upon and delete the page for this iconic event in isolation, outside of a larger Wikipedia policy or process that also considers the less notable events. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visit the page Suicide of Kevin Whitrick. What does that article have that this article doesn't have? Katelyn Nicole Davis was much more reported on local, national, and international levels, and affected the literally millions of people who saw her death video before Facebook and other social media were able to get the upper hand. This isn't an obscure topic. Today there are 35 separate groups about Katelyn Nicole Davis on Facebook while there are 0 about Kevin Whitrick. In May of 2017, Wikipedia page info said Suicide of Katelyn Davis received over 21,000 page views in the past 30 days. That's much more than the other lower profile Category:Bullying_and_suicide pages (and the page Suicide of Kevin Whitrick has had just 650 in the past month). A general Google search on ""Katelyn Nicole Davis"" returns 140,000 hits, while searching ""Kevin Whitrick"" returns only 5300. I know Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest, but this is a high profile topic that shouldn't be so quickly discarded. The page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism#Arguments_against_deletion says, "It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and inside find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship." Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Katelyn is notable in that she live streamed for the entire month leading up to her death. The amount of video she shared is comparable only to the likes of Ricardo Lopez, the Bjork stalker, who has a wikipedia page. Unlike Lopez Katelyn longed for connection and understanding. She is a person worth learning about, so I vote for this article to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.205.15 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC) — 76.94.205.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Indeed, unlike the other youth suicide articles on Category:Bullying_and_suicide, this event is noteworthy not only because Katelyn's actual death was virally viewed online by millions, but beyond that she recorded much of the last month of her life. The result of the 30 or so hours of footage leading up to her actual death is a one-of-a-kind valuable psychological perspective into the suicidal mindset. If somebody can locate a source that goes more into the psychoanalysis aspects of the case (like https://extranewsfeed.com/what-america-should-learn-from-live-streamed-suicides-aba2c5b754e4 but from a WP:RS) then that would be a quality addition to the article. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the 30 or so hours of footage leading up to her actual death is a one-of-a-kind valuable psychological perspective into the suicidal mindset - if that was the case then psychologists would have written about it and this discussion would not be happening. Hut 8.5 18:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psychologists may have written about this point, and editors just haven't located and included those sources in the article yet. Either way, the extensive recording of the last month of her live (culminating in the suicide video itself) is just one more noteworthy aspect of this event. The case for keeping this article gets stronger over time, especially now that it's getting referenced in published books. Also, Katelyn's death is having influence upon popular culture, such as her final words being used in videos by death metal bands. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN8zSTG35u0 Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue on the basis of sources then you need to actually show that those sources exist, not merely hand-wave. I've just done a Google Scholar search for the subject and didn't find anything written by psychologists at all. The best I could find was a passing mention in a Polish article about dead people on the internet, which gave her one sentence along with several other examples. Frankly I'm not surprised at this, mental health professions must spend a lot of time interviewing suicidal and depressed people in professional contexts and I can't see how a few YouTube videos made by one would be that valuable. Hut 8.5 11:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psych Central has this about the event written by a Doctor of Psychology: https://psychcentral.com/blog/outrage-over-katelyn-nicole-davis-video-suicide-misses-the-point/ - It even includes a snippet from Katelyn's extensive video archives embedded within it. Although this particular article doesn't emphasize the video archives as a resource, it does go into other psychological aspects of the case and how events like this can hopefully encourage better mental health funding, especially for people in poorer areas. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blog post and therefore not a very good source, and most of it is about the general phenomena of shocking videos being posted on the internet and lack of suicide prevention rather than about the subject matter. If it really is a "one-of-a-kind valuable psychological perspective into the suicidal mindset" I'd expect a bit more than that. Hut 8.5 22:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this article creator, I strongly believe that it should not be deleted.
English is my second language, so I apologize if my statement below is too short or not valid.
There are many similar articles about suicide (as previously mentioned by user Cruiser1) on Wikipedia. Why all of sudden, Katelyn Nicole Davis cannot have a Wikipedia page? People have the right to know what happened to Katelyn, her story may change someone’s perspective in a positive way and spread awareness about children suicide. This is Wikipedia overall. Sincerely, Nterix (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. The fact that Wikipedia has an article on something doesn't mean that it can have an article on something else. The circumstances may be different or it may be that the other article should be deleted as well. Suicide of Kevin Whitrick was nominated for deletion ten years ago and the comments weren't that enthusiastic about keeping it. I doubt it would do as well now. Hut 8.5 18:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s hypocrisy. Many suicide articles are similar, you just have to spend some time by comparing them with each other.
Of course, circumstances will be different, but that difference is small. If you want, you can always find a reason to delete things, since Wikipedia has too many rules. But what difference it will make? Nterix (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide these cases by comparing the article against other articles which exist. We decide each case on its own merits. You also can't assume that just because Wikipedia has an article on something that means we've taken some sort of decision to allow that article. Hut 8.5 20:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thousands of people commit suicide every day and many are reported in the press. However we can't create articles for every dead person especially someone who video taped their own suicide. Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10 year test.Tamsier (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Nicole Davis case is not usual, it is similar to the show “13 Reasons Why”. She recorded her life and the last days, if you do watch her videos, you would learn more about her and how kind-hearted she was.
When Katelyn needed help the most, she still wanted to help others, who also may be struggling and thinking about committing the suicide. She was forced to mature too soon because of living conditions, family, didn’t had any friends and experienced bullying in school, felt lonely (that’s why “Live.me” application became a part of her life), but Katelyn tried her best to not give up, do not let “demons” win.
On December 30, 2016 — something really bad happened that pushed her to end her own life. Other reasons also had an impact on this final decision.
So, it’s more complicated than you think. Her story is unique and able to spread awareness about depression, loneliness, bullying, abuse and etc.
WP:10 year test is not valid, since suicide will always be a big issue in society. Nterix (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article serves a useful function, but it does so in a very substandard way. The references contain only a passing mention after the event, and I found nothing on Newslookup trying a search. The problem is, most of what is useful in the article could genuinely be held in a paragraph. Exception being her motivations -- she apparently accused her stepfather of rape, but I see no way to follow up on whether that was viewed as credible or was simply a parting cruelty by a disturbed child. I mean, it looks like we're building half a bridge here. It's not really our job to lob a grenade like that at the dad and then not even be able to see if it goes off. Now to be clear, I absolutely think we should have Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis point to some target article, and the article should name her, and it should link to this archive of videos and describe the basic facts of her case and cite some of the other useful references. But the same article could fit dozens of other cases comfortably, and the most interesting and useful parts of that article will be about stuff like Facebook's policy decisions that have nothing to do with any of them. So I say make that article and get this stuff moved into it and cross-link the other cases and do this the right way. But if you don't do that, I'm up in the air on a straight keep-vs-delete call. (I am, however, absolutely clear on the "IAR we must censor because think-of-the-children if people thought about suicide" argument being absolutely deplorable. I don't know if putting up posters about suicide in colleges is really a bright idea but I've seen them right by the elevator -- I wish the numnuts would decide whether it is evil to talk about it or not to talk about it) Wnt (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there already exist some compiled pages similar to what you suggest above. For example, see "List_of_suicides_that_have_been_attributed_to_bullying" (which currently contains 22 other suicides). However, it appears that in order to be listed on that page, the individual suicide needs to also have its own page. Katelyn's death seems to be at least as notable and has enough supporting sources as they do. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That article differs from what I'd like in that it is a simple list and doesn't discuss the broader context in prose. There is a difference between listing as many bullying-induced suicides as possible and describing how suicides affected social media policy. As a list it is a hard thing to manage because it aspires to list every suicide by a certain cause, and the cause is apparently (according to the talk page) disputed, so it imposes an excessive certainty on events that are hard to research. Still, it is useful and could be a place for something like this. I see a comment in the talk about WP:NLIST, which says that "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections)." That second guideline just talks about the usual reliable sourcing policies. So a list article should not require every entry to have a separate article, because that is NOT a policy or guideline, and it is NOT a proper encyclopedic criterion for a list, and if people have been saying this then they are inciting people to make new articles when a new section would have done just fine, and creating an unnecessary need for processes like this one. Wnt (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the article nor the coverage in reliable sources—tragic though it is—has improved sufficiently to the point where I can overturn my previous !vote on the matter. ——SerialNumber54129 14:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tony HER KNIGHT (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic: wild claims and snide remarks ——SerialNumber54129 07:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is an ongoing social media hate campaign against this tragic ~ Girl,s ~ Family. Over the past 2 years the bereaved Mother and Her 2 young children have been pursued in real time. The original Wikipedia page had many unsubstantiated accusations and it contained many links to Youtube and Facebook where the sources of this unique case of generational bullying was, and still is , located. The contributor cruiser 1, who is fighting so hard to maintain a profile for this tragedy... (AGAINST the expresses wishes of the family)is fully aware of the actual real life damage. Tammy Michelle Rogers, ~ <redact BLP> I have been directed to an article about Righting Wrongs. I stand firm in my moral commitment to removing media that will draw attention to an easily accessible Suicide Video. Which I have seen, 12 days after it was made and it almost killed me. I have no doubt it has claimed lives. It is a suicide trigger. And ALL this media has glamourized what is,in essence a PRIVATE tragedy. I do not, however cite the morality as my complete reason. The social media hate and recrimination campaign has made money for unsubstantiated and sensationalist "reporting". I do not believe that Wikipedia embraces the spread of false information nor would want its reputation for finding and presenting truth and fact to be tarnished and devalued by becoming a source for such ignoble undertakings. Nor being used as a weapon to further enhance a real family,s pain. Tony HER KNIGHT (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] Well, you are spreading false information and lying. Katelyn mother’s property was not damaged. She sold her house and kids were taken away for safety reasons. “AGAINST the expresses wishes of the family” — do you have any evidence to support your claims? As far as I know, from Katelyn’s family no one complained about this article’s creation. What you call “social media hate campaign” are Facebook groups in memory of Katelyn Nicole Davis. These groups never made any money and they don’t spread hate, just seeking justice through awareness. See WP:NOTCENSORED. You want this article to be deleted for your own personal reasons. Also, please don’t remove anything from the article without a valid reason. Nterix (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] @HER KNIGHT and Nterix: Would the two of you please cite your sources? WP:BLP applies to this page, and this stuff is highly contentious. Besides, if we had reliable sources for claims like that with followup on this case, we might not have to delete the article, and we might be able to do a fairer job for the family than a random Google scoop of old newspaper articles. (On the other hand, if you're just posting local hearsay or claims written by random Facebook users, please stop doing that - Wikipedia isn't the right place to put up unsubstantiated gossip) Wnt (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] I know that, no worries. I did not wrote any serious claims like user HER DADDY did. However, I can provide a local news story about Katelyn’s mother arrest on drug charges — https://web.archive.org/web/20180218092719/https://www.weisradio.com/two-arrested-locally-on-drug-charges-on-labor-day Also, that her house was sold (not burnt down) — https://imgur.com/a/9ri7jBr Nterix (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] Neither of those sources are reliable or relevant. One of them did not even provide a link to their source and the other I can't even see. The first link did not even provide detail info or any relevance as to why this article should not be deleted. For sensitivity purposes, could someone please hat the above claims.Tamsier (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic: wild claims and snide remarks ——SerialNumber54129 07:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is an ongoing social media hate campaign against this tragic ~ Girl,s ~ Family. Over the past 2 years the bereaved Mother and Her 2 young children have been pursued in real time. The original Wikipedia page had many unsubstantiated accusations and it contained many links to Youtube and Facebook where the sources of this unique case of generational bullying was, and still is , located. The contributor cruiser 1, who is fighting so hard to maintain a profile for this tragedy... (AGAINST the expresses wishes of the family)is fully aware of the actual real life damage. Tammy Michelle Rogers, ~ <redact BLP> I have been directed to an article about Righting Wrongs. I stand firm in my moral commitment to removing media that will draw attention to an easily accessible Suicide Video. Which I have seen, 12 days after it was made and it almost killed me. I have no doubt it has claimed lives. It is a suicide trigger. And ALL this media has glamourized what is,in essence a PRIVATE tragedy. I do not, however cite the morality as my complete reason. The social media hate and recrimination campaign has made money for unsubstantiated and sensationalist "reporting". I do not believe that Wikipedia embraces the spread of false information nor would want its reputation for finding and presenting truth and fact to be tarnished and devalued by becoming a source for such ignoble undertakings. Nor being used as a weapon to further enhance a real family,s pain. Tony HER KNIGHT (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are spreading false information and lying. Katelyn mother’s property was not damaged. She sold her house and kids were taken away for safety reasons. “AGAINST the expresses wishes of the family” — do you have any evidence to support your claims? As far as I know, from Katelyn’s family no one complained about this article’s creation.
What you call “social media hate campaign” are Facebook groups in memory of Katelyn Nicole Davis. These groups never made any money and they don’t spread hate, just seeking justice through awareness.
See WP:NOTCENSORED. You want this article to be deleted for your own personal reasons. Also, please don’t remove anything from the article without a valid reason. Nterix (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HER KNIGHT and Nterix: Would the two of you please cite your sources? WP:BLP applies to this page, and this stuff is highly contentious. Besides, if we had reliable sources for claims like that with followup on this case, we might not have to delete the article, and we might be able to do a fairer job for the family than a random Google scoop of old newspaper articles. (On the other hand, if you're just posting local hearsay or claims written by random Facebook users, please stop doing that - Wikipedia isn't the right place to put up unsubstantiated gossip) Wnt (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, no worries. I did not wrote any serious claims like user HER DADDY did. However, I can provide a local news story about Katelyn’s mother arrest on drug charges — https://web.archive.org/web/20180218092719/https://www.weisradio.com/two-arrested-locally-on-drug-charges-on-labor-day
Also, that her house was sold (not burnt down) — https://imgur.com/a/9ri7jBr Nterix (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources are reliable or relevant. One of them did not even provide a link to their source and the other I can't even see. The first link did not even provide detail info or any relevance as to why this article should not be deleted. For sensitivity purposes, could someone please hat the above claims.Tamsier (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted already, per WP:NOTNEWS, and without sustained coverage, it is not notable. The argument for keeping it is essentially WP:OTHERSTUFF, which by itself is not a convincing argument. It's possibly worth a short mention in Social media and suicide, but by itself it's not an article suitable for an encyclopedia. Hzh (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2019 (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) 11:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of solar eclipses visible from Ukraine[edit]

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

Unnecessary list that can be replaced by category B dash (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a few more of these lists to consider: Category:Solar eclipses by country. Ajf773 (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Other lists had more content, deletion is not suitable. --B dash (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Content can be added. As there is no difference between those articles and this one except for the level of effort that has gone into each, if they should stand so should this. Indeed, I suspect the reason this list is so sparse compared to those is due to geographical location; there are considerably less Ukranian editors on en.wiki than US, Australian and British - we need to be careful not to introduce geographic bias. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are existing lists in other, larger regions. Please see List of solar eclipses visible from the United States. There is no reason we should delete this page of eclipses visible in the second largest country in Europe. Skirts89 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd use that as a good example, it's pretty much a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. The other lists wikilink items to the eclipse articles, and in the case List of solar eclipses visible from the United Kingdom provide some annotation.--Pontificalibus 19:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid deletion rationale presented. "Unnecessary" isn't even worth responding to. And even apart from the inadequacy of "can be replaced by category" (particularly in light of WP:NOTDUP), the nominator has it exactly backwards; why would we want 100 or more categories tagged on every eclipse article, one for every country from which they are visible? But separate specific lists of this kind can coexist without causing the same clutter. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid rationale given for deletion, and good rebuttals given by all editors above. This list can always be enhanced; the fact that it hasn't yet is absolutely no reason for deletion. And Postdlf is spot on about categories. This is a bad deletion proposal. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comment above. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wished I would support deletion but now we have moved to a stage where articles and categories both have become necessary to create.- Kaweendra (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2019 (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. Some passing mentions, but not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish-Pawan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First. Twinkle, why did you fail me? Second, the article has two issues. First, it comes across as an ad and I suspect there is WP:COI, but it is not so blatant as to qualify for speedy delete. Second, notability is insufficient. The sources that are sufficient for determining notability all discuss the shop itself, and the pair only in passing. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete: Per nominator's reasoning. Also, the article's title fails. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG and some of the references used doesn't have any connection with the subject hence fails WP:GOODREFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epaomo (talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:PROMO violation. Skirts89 (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep Added two links from huffingtom post and khaleej times. Even after have many news links from national.ae, gulfnews and others, why is it still not notable? (Besober (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Hi USER:Besober. I see you're new to Wikipedia, so I thought I would take the time to give you a few pointers on notability guidelines. The references you added to the article are what Wikipedia considers to be non-significant coverage - in other words, while the tailors are mentioned in this articles they are only mentioned in passing, and the article is about tailoring rather than the mentioned tailors. To establish notability, what is needed is sources focusing on the tailors. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2019 (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viviane Ventura[edit]

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

Notability not established. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 04:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gets quite a few trivial mentions, but clearly fails WP:NACTOR and probably also WP:GNG.--Ruhri Jörg 16:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Sutherland[edit]

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

IMO, this falls under WP:NOTNEWS Meatsgains^(talk) 03:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More important, this is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. This is an otherwise unknown person accused, but not convicted, of a single event. This is a biography of one arrest with trivial biographical depth. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This story seems to be getting a lot of national and international coverage. This reminds me of Elaine Herzberg which morphed over the course of the AFD into Death of Elaine Herzberg. This will probably become an article about the incident. MB 04:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:CRIME. We should not have a wikibiography on the alleged perpetrator of a crime who was otherwise non-notable and should be presumed innocent until trial. The example MB cites was turning an article named for a crime victim into an article on the crime, which is unlikely to be named for the perpetrator. EdChem (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Change to restructure / merge content into an article on the crime / incident, and change this article into a redirect. EdChem (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I meant, I said nothing about the name of the new article. MB 00:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MB, my apologies. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. EdChem (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to an article on the crime itself - that has garnered sufficient attention for an article, with it having been covered five times by the BBC alone[28][29][30][31][32], and has been covered equally well in other media, such as CBS[33][34][35][36] and in other sources[37][38]. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Hacienda HealthCare rape (or similar). The event is notable, having received international coverage from the end of December to present. The individual suspected perpetrator is not, and probably shouldn't be named in the article prior to when and if a conviction is secured.Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with an article about the incident. WesSirius (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with an article about the incident, similar to how Nikolas Cruz, the suspect in the MSD shooting, redirects to and is covered on the article relating to the event Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Enwebb (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this can be Merged into a non-existent article, but I agree with the sentiment. So isn't the correct action Move to Hacienda HealthCare rape and fix (the majority of the present article is already about the incident and not the background of this person). That will also leave a redirect. MB 00:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - as the event does not exist this is a Keep&Rename (or repurpose) situation. If we had the event already - then merge. Merge !votes should usually specify a target.Icewhiz (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RENAME it Hacienda HealthCare rape and KEEP per WP:GNG. Major national coverage of highly unusual crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would register that the crime itself is not uncommon, but the context and outcomes in this particular instance were. Enwebb (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear violation of the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLPCRIME and NOTNEWS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPCRIME. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It has been suggested that the contested article be merged into another specific article yet that article does not exist. But this is not where drafts are evaluated; this is the AfD process. Here we try to form a consensus on whether or not an article must be deleted, kept, merged into another, or replaced by a redirect. Not created. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find this rather pedantic. AFD considers whether the "topic" is notable, and most of the content is about a clearly notable topic. The effort to "Rename and Keep" is less than required for most Merges. I believe those that said Merge (even though there is no existing target article) did so because they felt Merge (of the standard AFD results (Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect) is the closest choice. The votes of Merge, Keep, Rename, Move, and Restructure are all effectively "Keep the content", which should be the focus here, not the mechanics of doing so. MB 14:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find my comments "pedantic." But suggesting deletion means finding essentially nothing worth keeping. This might be due to lack of sources verifying notability, lack of encyclopaedic value, or other reasons. Material that does not deserve to be up is not worthy of transfer somewhere else. If, however, the text is deemed to be worthy of inclusion at some point in the future, e.g. on account of being deleted under WP:TOOSOON, the text can be kept off main space in draft form and resurrected if and when it's appropriate to do so. Perhaps this is what you mean. -The Gnome (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2019 (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VIF Airways[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. No third party coverage beyond press releases. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other airlines-related AFD:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIF Airways
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zav Airways
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quikjet Airlines
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venus Airlines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines Sario528 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete if the operator actually operated any scheduled services then I would be inclined to keep but I cant find any evidence that the only aircraft Dornier VT-VIF did any more than fly a few charters in the year that they operated. If any body has evidence that they actually had flown a regular scheduled service with the Dornier then that could change my vote. MilborneOne (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, well even if it is flying, NCORP requires non trivial third-party coverage --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt appear to have flown a scheduled service so dont worry about it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They did operate scheduled flights, just that its really difficult to find online references to regional aviation news in India in the 1990s. Here's one from the FlightGlobal archive, World Airline Directory of 1996. Would this count as 'non-trivial' third party coverage? If so, there are more references to the company on that archive site and I can add them to the article.. Trinidade (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of now, I'm choosing not to weigh in on this. However, I'm pinging @Trinidade:, I've worked with them before and know them to be a good editor. Give it a day or two, see what can be done and then put forth my argument in favour of deleting or not deleting this article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability criteria not met.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a clear case. Failing WP:NCORP - but there seems to be quite an interest in these old airlines around here... . I don't even want to look through all of them, else we'll have a lot more nominations around here I guess... ;) --RuhriJörg 16:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruhri Jörg, added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venus Airlines. But feel free to nominate any airlines that don't meet the guidelines.--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tyw7 - I will look through them and nominate, if anything is suspicious ;)--Ruhri Jörg 10:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The airline is historic in being one of the first wave of private airlines in India and also the first operator of the Dornier 328. The lack of reports about the airline in local media, (both online and offline) is probably because they weren't based in Delhi or Bombay where airlines got lots of coverage in the local press. However, I've added a few references from FlightGlobal that mentions the launch of the airline. They've also included the airline in their World airline directory in 1996 as a scheduled operator. Hope this addition helps the article pass notability test! Trinidade (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidade, well WP:NCORP and WP:GNG requires significant third-party coverage. Your reference fails those, in my opinion. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single plane is not a "fleet", shall we rename this a singular "VIF Airway"? Fails NCORP; business listings and industry-specific news are not notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I notice here that the airline did operate some (very limited) scheduled services. However, I am in favor of deletion owing to what others have mentioned: notability criteria are not met. Trinidade makes good points, but I don't believe the airline requires an entire article of its own. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the Civil aviation in India article where deregulation is discussed. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 03:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Operated for a year with a single 30-seat aircraft. Sources in article not sufficient for WP:NCORP and my BEFORE doesn't come up with sources that would satisfy WP:CORPIND. Icewhiz (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2019 (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zav Airways[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. No third party coverage beyond typical press releases Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other airlines-related AFD:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIF Airways
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zav Airways
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quikjet Airlines
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venus Airlines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines Sario528 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete normally need an airline to have scheduled flights to keep but I cant even find any evidence that this one got beyond the "this is a good idea" stage. MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tyw7 and MilborneOne said it all. --Ruhri Jörg 16:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They got a permit (or rather - a "no objection" notice for a permit). Seems they failed to start operating.[39] In any event - they fail WP:NCORP. Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2019 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

youngStartup Ventures[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:CORPDEPTH as existing articles have issues with WP:ORGIND, WP:MULTSOURCES, and WP:RS. Original article seems to be created to slander the organization but once that was cleaned up there was little of substance left.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanwaldorf (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Never actually added to any log of AfDs - will "relist" to today's log
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A company going about its business; I am not seeing the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:12, 30 January 2019 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avang Music[edit]

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

The subject is not notable. Just some trivial mentions in the sources given. I can't find in depth coverage by reliable sources. Mhhossein ^talk 17:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is inline with wiki policy on Record labels and entertainmentMgbo120 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

How is it inline with them? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this appears to be a major record label in Iran. Meets NMUSIC #5. Significant length of history, significant roster of artists, appears to have significant cultural impact, and therefore of encyclopedic value. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be enough secondary source coverage to establish notability. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2019 (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 Croydon. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Vision 2020[edit]

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

This article is highly promotional and excessively detailed, and a news search indicates that it simply does not meet the GNG: I find little to no discussion of the "vision" in reliable, major sources. Look at the sourcing in the article--I see local newspapers at best, and the rest is websites, YouTube videos, and most of all a huge amount of primary sourcing. I wonder if User:Selfhurst is still around--I'm not the first one to see these problems. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information in this article is probably best condensed to several paragraphs which could then be included at Croydon#Future. On the other hand, I'd argue that well-established local newspapers can qualify as reliable sources. So if this nomination fails, the article in question could retain such citations and be shortened considerably. Meticulo (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page is inline with WP:GNG. Info is also factual Mgbo120 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with Meticulo a few condensed paragraphs could easily be merged into the Croydon article but there's no way this is suitable as a standalone article, Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt the sources are mainly local to Croydon, but I see others (even a non-English one) [40][41][42][43] and various projects of its developments are also covered, e.g. on the Whitgift development [44][45][46][47]. I believe it should satisfy WP:GNG with the large number of local sources (local sources are not necessarily non-RS) and some of the other sources. If there are parts that sound promotional, it is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue, and AfD should not be used to tidy up article since the article is not unambiguously for promotional purpose only. Hzh (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. There are sources discussing various specific proposed developments, such as those given by Hzh above. However there are insufficient sources discussing the Croydon Vision 2020 as a whole directly in detail, it is only mentioned in passing.--Pontificalibus 07:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole book on it - [48]. It is also misleading to call the sources passing mentions, since the mentions are meant to place these projects within the context of the Croydon Vision 2020, and they are therefore detailed coverage of the topic. Hzh (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That book has a sticker on the front that says "High Quality Content by Wikipedia Articles!" and was presumably auto-generated from this article and some other random crap - read about Alphascript Publishing. Secondly, if those articles are meant to place these projects within the context of the Croydon Vision 2020, you'd think they would do so explicitly, which they don't.--Pontificalibus 16:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sticker, but will disregard that book as the publisher is dubious. There are however discussions of the projects in other books, e.g. this one covers a few pages - [49], and [50]. Some the sources I gave do mention that the projects are part of Croydon Vision 2020 - [51][52][53] (there are many more sources covering individual project). Other sources, including academic ones - [54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. I have no idea why anyone would think that there would not be coverage for such a major scheme. Hzh (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any important info to Croydon, after that delete. Nightfury 09:54, 30 January 2019 (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.