< 5 December	7 December >

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 though there is room for significant improvement. ansh 666 07:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of works published posthumously[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT, not seeing the encyclopedic topic here. Paradoctor (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article at the moment is close to a dog's breakfast (a skim through of it shows everything from films where the director or a lead actor had died before release through to those where a character playing a very small part did the same, and I'm sure there are similarly loose criteria for other parts of the list). That said, a Google search on "posthumous work" suggests that there are certainly critically-written lists of the "best" such films and books, as well as more than a few listicles of the same thing. With pruning, this may pass muster. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my Google bubble is different than yours, but I fail to see "suggestive" results. Sources would be nice. Paradoctor (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was in a rush when I commented earlier. A couple I can find would be:

This piece from the Guardian, discussing the concept of posthumous publication and referring to a handful of the literary works cited in the list.
This one, which is an editorial for an online publication, again citing a handful of at least the names involved.
This, and its friend are examples of the more "listicle" results, which I'm happy to agree with any criticism of regarding reliability etc, although the fact that such things do exist argues that the entries on these lists (or at least a subset of some of them) are discussed as a group in a range of sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to distinguish between the list topic and the concept of "posthumous work" (currently a redirect to the list). The first two sources do suggest an article at the latter. Ideally, I'd like to see what shopping list has: a dozen refs, most of which in scientific(ky) journals, discussing the article's topic. The concept of "posthumous work" is likely notable due to the conflict between author's intentions and publisher's interests wrt to publication. Also, the problems of editing unfinished works / fragment collections would probably merit a section in such an article. Lists of works along these criteria from a few decent sources would nix the deletion for me.

"I was in a rush" No worries. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you, the more I think about it (I'll maintain a weak keep for the moment, but certainly won't feel slighted if the redirect is converted to an article with a few examples from here). Still looking for a couple of good discussions citing more than the "handfuls" of what's on this list as mentioned earlier, the presence of which may also give us some workable criteria for exclusion of a lot of the current list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's such a vague and broad term that will require continual tidying and pruning, otherwise I can foresee repeated additions from (for example) editors whose cousin worked as an extra on some film but died before it reached the cinemas - it's just unmanageable, and I don't see how such a list serves any useful function. It makes the whole Wikipedia project look comical. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but delete the drama and film sections. Movies and plays aren't "published". Clarityfiend (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publication says otherwise. Paradoctor (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be considered publication in some weird legal sense, but not by the general public. Also notice that neither movies or plays are mentioned in Publication#Types of publication. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try publishing: "Publishing is the dissemination of literature, music, or information" (my emphasis). See also "to produce or release for distribution".

"neither movies or plays are mentioned" Didn't notice the ((expand section)) tag? ;) E. g., Dramatic Publishing. Paradoctor (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Films and plays are not information except in the very broadest sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP as index of articles by significant shared feature, and per WP:CLN as complementary to Category:Works published posthumously. That categorization has been maintained ~~without controversy~~ since 2006 (the only CFD discussions I could find involved a rename), so I see no reason to raise doubts for a list that can be annotated to explain its inclusion. But also following the lead of that category structure it probably makes sense to turn this into a list of lists that focus on medium, so list of books published posthumously, etc. That would help better address the broadness of this list as some have complained above, and targeted lists could better address what is meant in the context of each medium. That is of course a matter for further development by editors. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"without controversy" That is not correct. More to the point, searching CfD and AfD for "posthumous" netted this:

The following are not about posthumous "works", but deal with the general criterion "posthumous"

The category has the same problem as the list. The "shared feature" is, by all appearances, not supported by reliable sources as a notable topic. It may be, but where are learned, scholarly, professional, or otherwise reliable sources concentrating on the topic? Shopping lists are as mundane and random as it gets, yet they do have an article supported by reliable sources. I'll gladly be shown my error, but I do insist on being shown. Paradoctor (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on the CFD history. But the parent category has still survived, and specific categories were deleted were for reasons particular to categorization and the categorization of people, and even the nominators in many of those CFDs suggested lists instead. I also think the degree to which there are inclusion problems it is very medium-specific (with books, there is no question, with movies, arguably more ambiguous), such that wholesale deletion is not appropriate. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose of the list is to show that there actually is quite a bit of argument going on. I'm not about to review all these discussions in-depth, save for pointing at WP:CCC.

But this is beside the point, as is the question of the vagueness of "posthumous" in some circumstances. The reason for this discussion is WP:DEL8. Where are the reliable sources establishing notability? I'm afraid two blog articles/opinion pieces are not sufficient to establish notability for "posthumous work", let alone the list topic. The two listicles are more nicely formatted clickbait than anything else, though I'll give Historylists points for being ad-free. Paradoctor (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only notable works should be listed, and so this then functions as an index of articles. There's no need for the fact by which the articles are indexed together to itself be notable (though you concede above that the topic of posthumous publication probably is anyway), to the extent that even makes sense as an analysis. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." Shopping lists are the topic of scholarly discussion. There is even a one shopping list that is notable by itself. Where are the sources discussing lists of posthumous works, as opposed to sources discussing posthumous works themselves? Is there a notable list of posthumous works? Paradoctor (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not about a list, because the list is not a subject; it is just our format of presenting information. LISTN is only one way to assess notability in relation to lists, its own terms state that it is not the only way, and it typically does not make sense when applied to article indexes. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 23:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim per Clarityfiend and Postdlf. We should have distinct lists for different significant kinds of works, and tight criteria for what it means for a work to be "published posthumously". For example, for films whose actor/actress died before the release, this should be limited to billed performers in a starring role in the film. bd2412 T 22:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. , and edit as suggested just above by User:BD2412. Appropriate list, multiple sources for having such lists and for considering them notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Works published posthumously. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 13 December 2017 (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. ansh 666 07:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburgevons[edit]

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

Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a collection of neologisms. Unnotable word. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, when I googled this I get an empty news page and a general search return of non RS. That is BEFORE. I am now convinced of notability. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, typography doesn't really end up in the news very often, does it? You would have seen a different picture if you'd tried a google books search, or if you'd known of the spelling variants (now pointed out by the IP who expanded the article). – Uanfala 14:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This could be added either to Typeface#Texts used to demonstrate typefaces or to Filler text. – Uanfala 20:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The trouble is deeper here. The article is based on an unreliable source. In five minutes I discovered a whole new vocabulary that would have been used in this article. It's not a "bottom horizontal line," it's a "arm." It's not a "right-hand curve," it's an "ear." We need to strive for quality. Rhadow (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is what the word means. The article doesn't tell me. I suppose some wikilawyer might try to say that without a definition it can't be considered a dictionary entry :) L3X1 (distænt write) 21:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, in its twelve letters, it has an example of every straight line and curve in a standard font. It's not a word. It's a sample graphic. Liken it to the typing sample. "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog," which uses every letter of the alphabet. Rhadow (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEDAY Billhpike (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reconsider the WP:ONEDAY argument, I have added a few book sources, one is from 1972. Sam Sailor 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone (anyone) had bothered to do a WP:BEFORE, they would have found many reliable sources in books on typography that describe its use as a test word for font design and layout. Diverse published sources in reliable publications = notability. Seriously, with so many excellent published references out there why are you all advocating deletion?198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 198.58.171.47 -- My point exactly. If the article creator had looked, the text would have been ... expository. Since you found so many excellent published references on Hamburgevons, why do't you put them in? Rhadow (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Eight sources and a biblio entry added, as well as an image from Commons. You should try researching the subject and adding sources sometime, as it is more constructive than not doing any research and blindly voting.198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 198.58.171.47's work and the presence of enough sources. Shouldn't the title be changed to Hamburgefonts though? – Uanfala 11:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 198.58.171.47. Seems like a topic which meets WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an obscure term of art is no reason to delete, when there is (and there is) adequate sourcing for it from that field. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In another realm, Morphenniel PRODded a "Very obscure term that you would only find in a economics book, not an encyclopedia". Is HAMBURGEVONS very obscure or just obscure? Rhadow (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that article was completely unreferenced. Perhaps you need to try editing articles and get some experience before delving into deleting them. Or are you just on Wikipedia to cause disruption and trying to delete the hundreds of hours of effort of true editors. Morphenniel (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been substantially improved and certainly meet WP:GNG as not even ordinary font, but one for special purpose. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a nonce word for printing tests with no inherent meaning. At best it will be a WP:DICTDEF. The only reference I could verify was [1], which aids not at all in determining what the title would/should be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonce-words aren't exempt from the notability guidelines, we've got articles on two dozen or so of them: Category:Nonce words, Category:Filler text. – Uanfala (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 23:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. more than a dicdef, and adequately referenced. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough and plenty of good sourcing to be found. It is worth keeping for readers who are looking for clarification on this non-word that is outside the scope of a dictionary. NerudaPoet (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced in the typographical literature at least as far back as 1972. Neither a neologism or a dic def. Sources have been added, meets GNG. Sam Sailor 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that Hamburgefonts is currently a redirect to Type design. That should be changed to point here. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Comparative Analysis of the Histories of Different Countries' Education Systems[edit]

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

This topic is a synthesis / original research. The references do not write about comparative analysis of different countries. So what we have here is a summary of the history affecting education in several countries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beiern (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC) This article is comparing eight different countries and how their histories affect their education systems. All sources are scholarly articles taken from JSTOR or other highly-regarded articles. Therefore, it is not original research. None of the information in this article is opinion-based; all statements are backed up by the scholarly articles previously mentioned. We, as the authors of this article, have already linked the article to a page based on Comparative Education and plan to change the title of the article to more specifically identify the topic of the research in the article. Beiern (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a collection 3 WP:ESSAYs (Spain and Argentina / France, Taiwan, and Montserrat / Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iran) masquerading as a Wikipedia article. each sub-essay compares a rather random set of countries.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTESSAY, what is telling is article creator's description of initial edit in their sandbox - "Starting Grad project". Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do not like essays. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure synthesis, and one of the best examples of essay-like pages I've ever seen. What do France, Taiwan, and Montserrat have in common? Not much, except that someone thought it would be interesting to compare their school systems.PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as said above as per WP:NOTESSAY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTESSAY/WP:SYNTH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. W. Wijetunge[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE turns up no reliable independent sources to establish verifiability. Only one source CricketArchive whose own notability is in question. After eight years, we don't even know the cricketer's first name. Rhadow (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Don't know the individual's first name" isn't really a very logical rationale for deletion... Bobo . 22:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaving two comments here at the same time because combining them into one comment makes no sense. We need to make a decision about this and then work on applying the solution. If you believe Cricketarchive's notability is "in question", then we need to look at a massive number of cricket articles on here... anyway, main point, if we are still deciding to delete cricket articles willy-nilly, we need to work on a solution, such as completing articles like List of Colts Cricket Club cricketers. These articles are no use with just the articles we've randomly decided to delete willy nilly. Bobo . 22:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - has played first-class cricket. As I've said above, if we need to create a solution like club-by-club lists of players, then this is a job which should be on our priority list before sending to AfD articles which clearly meet guidelines. Bobo . 22:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bibi. Furthermore, I'll add that POINTY, aggressive and destructive nominations like this is one of things that makes me want to stay away from Wikipedia. There's long been consensus that anyone who has played sport at the highest level domestically is notable. Cricket archive is a perfectly respectable reliable source. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point contributing to a project which people are destroying thanks to their own random criteria. Bobo . 23:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The general notability guidelines trump sport specific guidelines, and those require multiple reliable third party sources. One directory listing just does not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that you have voted delete in 97% of the last 500 AFDs you commented in. Jenks24 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Another very poor article based purely on statistical entries inflated into prose. The material is so minimal that it's not even possible to determine the player's first name. The only source has been shown to have non-negligible rates of error, which is problematic for the biography of a (presumably) living person. A better solution would be to merge into a list of players by club, but those seem to be discouraged currently. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only because they have consisted of the articles which people have decided, by their random, non-compliance to any kind of guideline, personal opinion as to which articles belong and which don't. If you are prepared to write an article named List of Colts Cricket Club cricketers, containing every first-class/List A player, please do so. Bobo . 09:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I asked User:Reyk at a previous debate to justify his assertion that CricketArchive has "non-negligible rates of error" by citing some examples of his own use of the site. I'm happy to state that I've used CricketArchive both here and in outside work over a period of about 12 years virtually every day, and have found it overwhelmingly accurate, and also amenable to correction for the very few errors and omissions. What is your actual experience of using the site, User:Reyk? Johnlp (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided a list of errors to you earlier. But I know how this is going to go: I show you two mistakes, you'll want to see five; I show you five, you'll demand 20. Sorry, not playing that game-- there are no goalposts in cricket. The mis-spelling of names and the vagueness regarding similarly-named players that we already know of (and for every demonstrated mistake there's undoubtedly several undetected ones) is enough for me to insist on independent verification beyond a handful of stats that barely amount to a few cells in an Excel spreadsheet. Reyk _YO! 11:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You provided one instance where what appears to be a spelling mistake is repeated across both CricketArchive and Cricinfo, and another (on a cricketer whose AfD resulted in a "Keep") where CricketArchive was unable to differentiate between cricketers of the same name and was sensibly unwilling to conflate. It's not unreasonable, for those of us who use CricketArchive daily and rely on it, knowing it to be 99.9% accurate and reliable, to ask what depth of usage and knowledge enables you to derive your view that the site has "non-negligible" rates of error. Johnlp (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - And this would result in Wikipedia writing two articles about the same person as though they're two distinct people, or fusing two different players into a single fictional person. That you don't see a problem with writing biographies of living people when you can't even be 100% sure of their identity is very telling. Reyk _YO! 11:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't say that it is satisfactory, and one would always want more detail when it can be found, which is likely to be in Sri Lankan sources. But the AfD in that instance was for "Keep" and the certainty provided by CricketArchive was that a player of that name appeared in that particular notable match, and that was patently enough in that case for the WP community as a whole. Back to this one: why is it that you seem so reluctant to provide us with more evidence of your deep knowledge of the apparently multiple errors in CricketArchive? Do you actually use the site to contribute to WP? I'm trying to AGF on your behalf, but you must give me a bit of help. Johnlp (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, if you wish to contact CA as to the "errors" you have found in their database, I have found them very hospitable to alter their database on the grounds of cited, factually accurate, provable data. Bobo . 11:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First-class cricketer playing cricket at the highest domestic level in a country that plays Test cricket: therefore passes WP:CRIN, which is the longer, more explanatory form of WP:NCRIC which is itself the sector notability guideline that links into and informs WP:GNG. Johnlp (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't decide whether this destructive apparent campaign to have first-class cricketers from non-English speaking countries deleted from Wikipedia will end up at WP:LAME or WP:ARBCOM. Either way, it's distasteful, POINTy and contrary to our values. This first-class cricketer is verifiable despite the paucity of English-language sources. The lack of first name doesn't change that. His existence is demonstrably encyclopedic and the exceptionally tenuous attack on the highly-regarded source, used widely by cricket experts willing to shell out to get through the paywall (and sorely missed by those who can't afford to) brings even further discredit to the cause. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the above, sadly. Our database is being destroyed by people who don't care for the sport nor for basic, consistent, NPOV guidelines. Has every major cricketer from a first-class English county team now been covered? Sadly this will probably mean that every major cricketer from a country other than England is now under threat, and there is no point submitting articles because in eight years time someone will come along and delete them... Bobo . 12:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will say up front that I think this article should be deleted according to current WP:GNG definitions. Based on the subject's cricket activity, there is no way it will ever be anything more than a micro stub. It will never be a core in-dpeth article based on cricket activity. It is merely a replication of very basic and limited sports statistics. Where is the consistency in notabiity. If this was about an academic I suggest it would be hyper speedy deleted. If it was about a female football player it would be argued about but I suggest pretty solidly deleted. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles like this one. I note comments about building the [cricket] database. As far as I am aware this is not what Wikipedia is about. It is, amongst other things, about intrinsic demonstrable independent reliable sourceable notability. The subject does not deserve an article in its own right. However, the content is perhaps arguably encyclopedic. Accordingly, I suggest, if it is kept at all, the current article should be reduced to a redirect to an entry in a list table of this subject's cricket statistics, for the one club they played for once (a single event?) at top level. I have deliberately not !voted. Aoziwe (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. BW Wijetunge is a first-class cricketer and according to guidelines of WikiProject Cricket, first-class cricketers are noteworthy. Now I have added the Cricinfo profile of this particular first-class cricketer into the article. So it should not be deleted. Abishe (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Couple of misconceptions here. Firstly, this is not a speedy keep criterion. Secondly, the cricket wikiproject's rules are not guidelines, are strongly disputed, and are not accepted by the community outside the wikiproject. See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D._Kodikara, among many others. Thirdly, CricInfo and CricketArchive are not independent sources in the sense that one copies extensively from the other (or maybe the copying goes in both directions, I'm not sure), and this includes the copying of errors (see, eg, the "Brainder Sran" bungling pointed out here). It's not possible to regard these identical stats listings as two independent sources for our purposes. Reyk _YO! 09:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Badgering much? The odd article being deleted doesn't make us lose hope, and shouldn't make you start jumping up and down like an excited teenager just because you're getting your way. The fact that you seem more busy to push your agenda makes Wikipedia sad. The fact that people can't maintain simple guidelines is another issue entirely and frankly would see almost any other user dealing with any other sports biographical topic being topic-banned. As per the usual, the delete arguments are based on WP:ONESOURCE (which is fixable as soon as you point it out to someone), and WP:DONTKNOWHISFIRSTNAME, which seems to be a new guideline which I'm not aware of. Bobo . 09:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are red herrings here. The overwhelming consensus of just about everyone who knows a jot about cricket is that Cricket Archive and Cricinfo are both reliable sources. There's no such thing as a source entirely devoid of errors. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, if we only restricted cricket AfDs to people who knew about cricket or cared about Wikipedia, these debates would not be necessary. Bobo . 11:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed putting the single-appearance players into articles like Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players. It was rejected. WP has policies about BLP that require coverage beyond an entry in a stats database. As to corrections to CricketArchive, that's great. Show us please a source you would use to correct B. W. Wijetunge, perhaps even her first name. Rhadow (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected because people included only the articles which, against basic logical Wikipedia guidelines, had been deleted. If people had been willing to make lists with every first-class cricketer for a team, this would not have be a problem. Mind you, if everyone had stuck to the same basic guidelines, this problem wouldn't have had to have been created, either... Bobo . 12:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not come close to meeting GNG. Per this RfC and recent AfDs, it is clear that SSGs do not supersede the GNG; therefore all keep votes above based on the subject meeting WP:CRIN are invalid. Dee 03 08:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree with someone's opinion doesn't make it "invalid". I could just as easily point out that the two main notability "guidelines" completely contradict each other and therefore make each other completely worthless, proving that brightline criteria are the only sensible arbiter. Bobo . 11:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing to show notability for this person beyond their one appearance in a cricket match. The sources provided are database entires rather than substantive sources and tell us that a match that he played in took place, his surname and initials. We don't have a forename, date of birth or even which hand he batted with for example - in those circumstances I don't believe that we'll be in a position to verify anything about the person beyond what we currently have at any point in the foreseeable future. If we can't add substantive sources then there's a clear failure of the GNG and several RfC (such as this one) have made it clear that sports notability criteria only provide a presumption of notability if there is a hope that the GNG will ever be met. The close of the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Kodikara certainly seems to support such a position as well. In addition this is (probably) a BLP. In this circumstances I'm even more wary about keeping the article without sourcing beyond minimally detailed database entires - the profile tab of the one inline source in the article says it all: "Oops! We do not seem to have enough information about this player. Please check again later."

If we had a forename, date of birth etc... and the player could be shown to have played in other cricket matches (i.e. of a non-first-class status) then I could be persuaded that there is a reasonable probability that sources might exist. I would have no prejudice against the re-establishment of the article if such sources can be shown to exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I strongly suspect this was Bernard Wijetunge, who captained St Peter's College, Colombo in the Battle of the Saints in 1975 (the Sri Lanka equivalent of Eton v Harrow), and won the Saints Quadrangular with OPs in 1990 (for example, this); his father, also Bernard, played for St Peter's in the 1940s, and his son Sheehan in the 2000s. The point of a presumption of notability is that there are almost certainly offline print sources in Sri Lanka - probably including sources in languages than English - to establish his notability, in the 1970s or the 1990s or later. All we need is someone with the time and inclination to search through old newspaper archives in Colombo. Absent that, systemic bias (against things that happened in a foreign country far away, in another language, before the dawn of the internet) will see this article deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.74.175.21 (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Wijetunge Jr is possibly the B Wijetunge who played club cricket for Nomads in the 1980s.[2] Hack (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing detective-work, cheers. Given that the main deletion rationale (as always) is "don't know the individual's first name", this fairly invalidates the initial rationale for deletion. Bobo . 18:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A blog entry by Dion Walles is not a reliable source that fairly invalidates anything. Insufficient to support a (presumably) BLP. Wijetunge is not an uncommon name in cricket or Sri Lanka. Piyal Wijetunge was the subject's contemporary (with a single cricket reference). Dingiri Banda Wijetunga was the prime minister of Sri Lanka in 1990. Rhadow (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be fair enough if this individual's name was DB Wijetunga. But it's not even spelt that way. Bobo . 19:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of information, The Sunday Leader is not a blog. Nor is The Island. But I am impressed by your evident knowledge of frequency statistics of surnames in Sri Lanka. You have found our two articles. How many other people with that surname do you think there are? It is not like Smith or Jones, certainly. Or Wickramasinghe or Dissanayake or Jayawardene. I've also seen the Singhalese transliterated as Wijethunga. Another of the difficulties of dealing with events twenty and more years ago, far away in a foreign language. But the similarity of a relatively unusual surname with a couple of other clearly-notable people with articles is somewhat beside the point, although I would not be at all surprised to find they are all reasonably closely related. There are actually two existing sources for our article on the One Test Wonder Piyal Wijetunge (one in the infobox, and another to ESPNcricinfo; no doubt one could be added to CricketArchive without any trouble; as a Test cricketer who has also coached the Sri Lanka national team, he is also mentioned in many easily available newspaper reports). If I am right about this being Bernard Wijetunga Jr, he is actually from the previous generation (around 18 in 1975; Piyal was born in 1971). Bernard appears to be a prominent member of the Sri Lanka business community now, involved in tourism. If only there was an editor in Sri Lanka who could do the research using offline sources, rather than pontificating from afar using the paltry gleanings of Google.

In other words WP:VERIFY is totally failed on a BLP? It might be Bernard. The other one might be Bernard. They both might be Bernard (wouldn't be the first time the databases have got things wrong). Or neither may be Bernard - we simply don't know. If VERIFY is failed on a BLP then we have to seriously question if the article is one that should be kept - it makes the case for delete stronger, not weaker. It can always be re-created when the necessary clarification is gleaned from somewhere or other. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I spend a lot of time voting on corporate AfDs and expect there to be some reliable coverage to substantiate notability. It's hard to argue that a player who appeared once is notable, while the match he appeared in doesn't even warrant coverage anywhere on Wikipedia. The most logical (but not easiest) solution is to put this player on a list of players for the club, but certainly not to devote an entire article to him. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 14 December 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Songs recorded by Arrows[edit]

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

List also exists on Arrows (British band). Is it going to be spun off or not? And if so, is it still notable to have such a list? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is already a list of songs by the Arrows in the article on Arrows (British band). Vorbee (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no need for a redirect, as anyone looking for this information is going to find the band's page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons enumerated above. Ventric (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2017 (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 without prejudice to recreation once more information is available. ansh 666 07:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Quavo and Travis Scott album[edit]

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

An upcoming album we absolutely know nothing about (no title, no release date, no recording date, no confirmed tracks etc), it's just based on tweets and rumors. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Merynancy pointed out, there are no official release date for this upcoming album, no album cover and no confirmed tracks. I think we should waited until we get more information about this album. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we did get the title, but that's really the only thing we have so far. The article is still just way too premature. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 00:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates policy laid out in WP:CRYSTALBALL (specifically point 5). User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 02:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references such as [3] suggest that even if this fails WP:HAMMER now, it probably won't by the end of the month. That said, the current article is largely non-encyclopedic gossip. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...then move it to a sandbox until it's actually relevant. Not like we'd keep much of it in the final version of the article, anyway! ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice to moving/merging should anyone want to do so. ansh 666 07:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb Rack[edit]

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

Apart from this, which confirms that it exists, I can't find any other source for any of this. Unless there are more sources, it seems to fail WP:NMEDIA as not really important in any way and WP:GNG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to invoke WP:NMEDIA #2, but...especially without any available sourcing, this looks to be fairly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL when it comes to military units' internal periodicals. If it had been published during the war, there would probably be more on it, but as it is...move to Bomb Rack (periodical) (to avoid confusion with bomb rack) and redirect to Twentieth Air Force, merging any sourcable content to that article's history section and/or creating a new section for 'unit publications'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and why the heck does bomb rack redirect to bomb bay? the former exists inside the latter, but...to WT:AIR, away! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, only ran for two months. Not sure about merging though - the only source I have is one sentence on it in a book, which doesn't seem enough to include in the twentieth air force article. Maybe one sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some sourcing - armyaircorpsmuseum collection, [4], Andersen’s newspaper a 60-year tradition.Icewhiz (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The second one provides some sourcing which allows to be merged with sourceable content I reckon. But only has 1.5 paragraphs on bomb rack itself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 2 of media notability. Of historical value. I found some coverage in Foreign Service. Here's an issue of the magazine on Ebay. Might be okay to merge to a broader history of this type of publication if / when one is written. Rename as per above. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FloridaArmy Being a past newspaper doesn't mean it is of historic value - it only existed for a few months and didn't have much impact. Being on ebay doesn't mean much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bienvenido "Bones" Banez Jr.[edit]

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

Apparently not notable by our standards, does not meet WP:ARTIST. Apart from the Lexikon der phantastischen Künstlerinnen et Künstler: Surrealisten, Phantasten, Symbolisten, Visionäre, published by "Books on Demand", the page is sourced almost entirely to the website of the Williamsburg Art & Historical Center, where Banez is apparently a participant or resident. That institution, with its director Terrance Lindall and owner Yuko Nii (Mrs Lindall), and its activities such as the Brave Destiny exhibition, has been the subject of extensive promotional COI editing here. This appears to be more of the same. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My vote: His work is now in the Milton Cottage, Chafont England collection and many pieces in the University of South Carolina Wickenheiser Milton Collection. I vote that he is great enough to keep the article.Terrance Lindall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have something to help show these are true? I cannot find records for either of these claims. Furthermore, AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion where as a community we attempt to come to a consensus. Ham tech person 18:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the quality of the sources is extremely poor. I removed four Williamsburg Art Centrer sources that were merely event announcements. I see no in depth coverage to establish notability. The book publications at the beginning appear to be either print on demand or self-published.2607:FEA8:D140:8D0:D1C8:D417:34CC:A3CB (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links to prove the truth of the statements: U of South carlolina 2013 newsletter mentions Banez in the collection of Robert Wickenheiser: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://library.sc.edu/search/index.php?q=bienvenido+bones+banez&httpsredir=1&article=1016&context=tcl_news

They misspell his last name as Banes when it should be Banez

He is listed by Carter Kaplan of International Authors as being on the editorial board here: :http://carterkaplan.blogspot.com/

Regards Terrance Lindall (talk)

Please do not use "==" section headers for your comments as they mess up the formatting. A simple "*" asterisk will do.2607:FEA8:D140:8D0:D1C8:D417:34CC:A3CB (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Are you associated with the article subject? There is a Terrence Lindall who promoted the article subject's work at the Wiliamsburg museum. Please read WP:COI. Votes and arguments for keep by involved persons who have a promotional interest are not considered to be objective.2607:FEA8:D140:8D0:D1C8:D417:34CC:A3CB (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked him up and can't find any reliable coverage in the media that would suggest notability. Everything is museum appearance listings and blogs, and mirror Wikipedia sites - but no independent biographical info. There is a lengthy list of exhibitions and publications, but no corresponding media coverage for those items either. Fails WP:RS.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elián[edit]

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

This appears to be a TV documentary by a news channel. I don't see the significance. Note that there are reliable sources to be found, but I'm still not sure that those add up to notability for this sort of work. bd2412 T 12:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To the extent that sources are available, this can be merged into Elián González; the title should redirect to the disambiguation page Elian. bd2412 T 13:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support OP's proposal to merge and to redirect. From a reader's POV, it would be most helpful to find everything about Elián González in one place. Narky Blert (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. A notable documentary. Should be mention in the article on Elian of it isn't already. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no hint of this "substantial coverage in reliable independent sources" in the article. bd2412 T 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is search "Elian documentary". Oodles of coverage. ABC News etc. here is a Miami Herald article on the film and ensuing controversy. Why didn't the nom look for substantial coverage before nominating the article for deletion? Clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noted in the nom that there are reliable sources to be found, but the subject matter is basically a repackaging of the notability of Elián Gonzalez, the person. The synopsis merely summarizes the key events of his life. This is not a theatrical film, but a one-shot television documentary, no different from the televised retrospectives of other famous people that are made from time to time. bd2412 T 22:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I noted and the one I linked are much more than a synopsis. The Miami Herald discusses the filmmaker, the filmmaking process, interviews, sights visited etc. Etc. It's an in depth article about the film and its historical context. Notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to improve the article to this effect. bd2412 T 23:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say people should be able to vote without anything being said about them changing the article. Subuey (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF through sources found that can be used to improve this topic. needing work is no reason to delete or merge a notable topic... though it IS to do some work. Easily found are Film Daily, The Film Stage, Slannt Magazine, Queer Guru, Film Journal International, Hollywood Reporter, Screen Daily and Common Sense Media to name but a few. No need ever to merge what can stand on its own. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per a review of available sources, passes WP:NFP / WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 13 December 2017 (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. ansh 666 07:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norman de Leslie[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:V and Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The only cites are to non-WP:RS genealogical web pages and a self-published non-reliable 19th-century family history written by a fawning (supposed) descendant, and a single passing reference. This issue was first raised on a related AfD. Agricolae (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail GNG. Wikipedia is not a genealogical site.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earl of Rothes the title subsequently held by the family, inserting an unlinked list of names, with the heading "Lords of Leslie" or perhaps "Barons of Leslie" (not sure which is better), before the list of earls. If kept the redlink to Barony of Leslie would be delinked or redirected to Leslie, Fife: barony is the Scottish equivalent of a manor and should not have a separate article from the place

The problem with a merge is that there is no WP:RS underlying the material, so its inclusion anywhere is a problem. Agricolae (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of these individuals are notable enough to merit their own article. Dunarc (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These individauls just do not meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Whalers (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:PTM: none of the titles listed on this disambiguation page need to be disambiguated from "Hartford Whalers"; none are or were ever known by that name. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Others are not notable and spelled different anyway.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment - I reverted an old vandal edit which hid the original entries being disambiguated, leaving only a see-also list of related titles which would be normal to find on a disambiguation page. However, the two titles being disambiguated, both "Hartford Wailers", were never known as "Whalers", and are also both redlinks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary disambiguation page. The Connecticut Whale, linked to under see also, have a similar logo and the same colors as the Whalers, but with a text-based search it's unlikely many people would be looking for them. Even if they were, a hatnote would suffice. Smartyllama (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last 2 don't meet MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2017 (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 keep. Removing one part of a notable article is not what AfD is for. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me Too (hashtag)[edit]

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

The article consists mostly of an arbitrary list of names of people who have had harassment allegations levelled against them since the fallout from the Harvey Weinstein controversy. While the article purports to about the Me Too hashtag, the minimal amount of content dedicated to this aim compared to the length of the indiscriminating list of names that follows it gives it the appearance of a WP:COATRACK.

Some if not many of the names being linked to single allegations are not even necessarily related to the topic of the page, and many of the citations are to questionable sources. Without specific context for each person listed, the list is a libel lawsuit in the making and is likely in breach of WP:BLP. An indiscriminating list of anyone who has since had any sort of allegation of any type made against them, regardless of reliability, as long as they are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page is not the responsible way of documenting these serious, potentially reputation damaging matters.

There is some discussion on the the article's talk page about the appropriateness of the included list, but most of the conversation appears to be between contributors who created the list in the first place. Given the potentially defamatory nature of the list and a possible breach of WP:BLP, it seems appropriate to list the whole article here for a broader consensus. Kb.au (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable movement or moment or some such thing.[5][6][7] I had said this should be merged into the Harvey Weinstein article, back in October. In the last six weeks, this has clearly blossomed into a notable topic. They are Time Person of the Year. We're not committing libel, we're reporting on founded accusations. I wouldn't be against finding another name for the page (Time Magazine called them the Silence Breakers, so I redirected that term to the Me Too article), but the content meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close: There are 316 sources in the article; almost everything in the article is sourced. I believe the problems the nominator posed are a) not as serious as he seems to think, and b) resolvable without an AfD discussion. p b p 15:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I think you might have an argument for the removal (or addition) of specific individuals or incidents, and certainly BLP has to be a concern with topics such as this. But I don't see any credible argument that the topic is not notable. If there is a need for broader discussion about whether the list should be included, an RFC would do the trick - no need to delete the entire article wholesale. See also Time Person of the Year for 2017. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2017 (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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Elad[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Once one removes the self promoting material that the has been added this individual does not meet WP:BIO nor does he WP:NPROF, a google search did not come up with any Reliable Secondary sources on this individual VViking_TalkEdits 14:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets NPROF. IEEE Fellow with h-index of 77 - scholar stats for Michael Elad. Regarding the promotional, un-sourced, and quite possible (per user name adding it) autobiographical material - we could just roll-back to May version or selectively accept part of it.Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only meets NPROF, but also meets WP:AUTHOR as he has been selected a few times among Thomson-Reuters most influential researches world wide [8] and seems to have more than 3K influencial citations [9]. comment added by Jsulam (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Jsulam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 79.180.48.45 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:NPROF --EC Racing (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page history shows that page was created by a reliable editor as a stub because Elad is a IEEE Fellow, which is the kind of honour that qualifies you for a page. and as per User:Icewhix's citation of his h-index.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets AUTHOR and NPROF. Needs cleanup, not deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per citation counts on Google scholar that are heavy even for computer science (9 papers with >1000 citations each [10], WP:PROF#C1) and the IEEE Fellowship (WP:PROF#C3). AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a clear pass of the notability guidelines for academics. The article may well need rewording to make it present information from a more neutral point of view, but AfD is not for cleanup, and any needed cleanup can be done by editing, there is no reason to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2017 (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 Anurag Kashyap. Fails WP:NFF - no prejudice to recreation once it passes. ansh 666 07:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manmarziyan (film)[edit]

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

Crystalballing Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Revert all edits to last version by Cyphoidbomb. The film's shooting will begin in January next year. There are a lot of edits made on the article by different users, so if deleted the article all edits will be deleted. Mr. Smart LION 04:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not allow article on yet to be shot films.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft as WP:TOOSOON as the article reference states shooting does not start untill January Atlantic306 (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly violates WP:NFF. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2017 (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. Seems to be consensus that the sourcing is sufficient. ansh 666 07:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jérôme Courtailler[edit]

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

Non-notable terrorist. The article is sourced and he is name-checked to The Guardian, so it's not a WP:G10 but I really don't feel we should have articles on these topics without a substantially higher level of sourcing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial role in allegedly "supplying the forged documents to the two men who assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud in September 2001" and a planned attack on French embassy. Substantial coverage and multiple historically significant events. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~and remind Nom that~~ a simple WP:BEFORE is always a good idea, in this case, the first thing that popped up would have been this New York Times exploration of Courtailler's path to jihad: Europe Fears Islamic Converts May Give Cover for Extremism. Plenty of WP:RS exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of WP:BEFORE in this case (see User:Ritchie333/saves - I know all about WP:NOTCLEANUP - indeed I came across this article when declining an A7 tag on it), just I think a dedicated article for a terrorist is not a great idea (see WP:BLPCRIME) and I do not think there are detailed enough sources that an article that isn't basically a hit-piece can be written. Indeed, that NYT piece isn't really about him as such, it's about the problems of extremist radicalisation generally, and I have high standards for articles about living criminals. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect your scruples, this individual, convicted by an appellate court in the Netherlands in a case that was followed INDEPTH by the international press, and written up since not only by journalists, but in numerous books and in academic articles on jihadist recruitment and radicalization is far too notable to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup (and the article needed (was correct circa 2002!) cleanup and updating). Plenty of sources out there for this guy - books, journal articles, and coverage by top-notch newspapers.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "looking for sources and finding them insufficient" with "not bothering to look for sources". AGF, please. As a related point, what should the first sentence of the article be - "Jerôme Courtailler was born in Bonneville, France" doesn't tell us anything, "Jerôme Courtailler is a convicted terrorist" isn't strictly accurate, ""Jerôme Courtailler is a radical extremist jailed for attempting to blow up the US Embassy in France" is too long winded. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to "The article is sourced and he is name-checked to The Guardian, so it's not a WP:G10" with the results of my BEFORE - I did not say anything regarding your due diligence prior to nomming other than disagreeing with the result. Regarding convicted terrorist - he was in an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and convicted for terrorism charges, however WP:TERRORIST may apply. I think your third option "Jerôme Courtailler is a radical extremist jailed for attempting to blow up the US Embassy in France" is technically accurate and not overly long for a lead.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my BEFORE, what really convinced me is him being referenced in several journal articles - [11]. Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haileybury Astana[edit]

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

Unsourced; can't find any good independent sources to show that it's notable. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a guide but not a reason unto itself, my reasons for nominating were:

Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD. Given that the article was tagged two years ago for being unsourced, I would think that if any offline sources were going to be added, it would have happened by now.
The only sources I could find were primary/self-published; brief mentions on the sites of architects and job postings; or news articles where the school was mentioned but not the primary focus of the writing.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - secondary sources exist showing the school exists, such as ~~[12]~~ and [13] and ~~[14]~~ - on that basis, it should be kept as per longstanding consensus. JMWt (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per long-standing consensus on the status of schools. PLUS JMWt has found adequate sources. Egaoblai (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we have truly indepdent sources that are secondary we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: So, the links I've provided above from Reuters and the Telegraph are not independent and secondary enough for you? JMWt (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep as there are sources independent of the subject, satisfies WP:V. I agree with JMWt. Störm (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there seem to be plenty of sources to demonstrate that the school meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, the first and third sources found by JMWt are actually about Haileybury Almaty, not Haileybury Astana. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry pardon, my mistake. I must have experienced a form of word blindness because I was trying to look for the latter not the former. JMWt (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging Egaoblai and Störm, since they mentioned these sources in their keep rationales, just in case the above changes anything for them. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually reading those sources again, both mention that another school is being planned in Astana. So they're not as strong evidence as I suggested above, but taken with the other mentions (and, it appears, there may also be others in local language media of which only a small number appear in my google searches), there is enough to show that this school was planned and then opened. We're simply trying to show that the schools is not a fake and it exists, I think this collection of mentions is enough. JMWt (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find one other source at least, and have added that to the article. Most of the rest should probably be deleted as unsourced and overly promotional. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Cordless Larry for the ping. they seem to have provided new sources for WP:V. so at the moment my vote is the same.Egaoblai (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more mentions showing that the Astana school exists [15] and [16] JMWt (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also for completeness this: [17] - not totally independent as it is written by the headteacher, however it is in an secondary publication who presumably are persuaded that it is a real institution. Again, not enough on it's own, but adds to the picture. JMWt (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that it exists - we have the sources to demonstrate that. The question for me is whether there is enough coverage to warrant a separate article, or whether a redirect to Haileybury and Imperial Service College#Haileybury Astana might be a better idea. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2017 (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. Merge can be discussed on article talk page if still desired. ansh 666 07:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons 52[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and very few sources in general. Looks suspiciously promotional. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:Corp, not notable, promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, 41 branches is notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Darden Restaurants is a major restaurant company, to not have coverage of their brands would be strange. Theoretically it could merge into the Darden article but it makes more sense to keep separate like the rest. There's a lot of news coverage. -- GreenC 17:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These mostly seem to be about Darden, not Season 52, and notability is not inherited.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seasons 52 is a substantial, moderately high-end national chain (although it flopped in L.A. despite its health conscious, portion-controlled concept). GNews shows slews of hits and even if many of them are just local reviews, there's enough there to allow someone to turn this into a substantive article, if they're willing to expend the effort. As it is, the article does have a tinge of promotionalism and not much in the way of facts, so even though I do think the subject is notable, I could understand if the consensus were to merge this into the Darden article until someone actually writes a better article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. no evidence that it is now or ever was notable. The references and content are the usual promotionalism for this type of article. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Darden Restaurants until sufficient standalone notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge to Darden Restaurants, which will improve that article. Borderline notability to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively, as suggested, which will both improve that article and get rid of promotionalism at this one. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG:, I assume you meant to strike your previous !vote with this one; I've done that, but if I was wrong by all means revert. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you are correct--thanks for notifying meI think a very selective merge is the better choice. It's often a good compromise. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Major League Lacrosse awards. ansh 666 07:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Lacrosse Iron Lizard of the Year Award[edit]

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

Awarded for three years for sponsorship reasons. Sources all press releases. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, probably unofficial, award, most likely WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Major League Lacrosse awards. It's not an WP:OR concern ([18] is a press release but supports the claims), but also not notable as a stand-alone topic. Mentioning it in a "discontinued awards" at List of Major League Lacrosse awards is enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:12, 14 December 2017 (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 restoring the earlier redirect if someone wants. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Steeves[edit]

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

Delete and redirect to Rick Steves (as was originally). Self-published travel writer with a name extremely close to another famous travel writer. No independent reliable sourcing showing notability. GreenC 12:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support restoration of the redirection to notable Rick Steves, I couldn't find any additional sources for cyclist Rick Steeves. Geo Swan (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion - three cites, two to his own sources and one not important, and also looks like a blog site. The only book is self-published. Just not notable. KJP1 (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I got nothing. GMG ^talk 17:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An fully automatic redirect to a different search confuses those searching for Rick Steeves, given the overlap in content (both travel authors, both widely traveled in Europe). That's widely evident when searching on-line for "Rick Steeves". I left in the reference to the other author, because he's certainly MORE notable. However, the error itself is notable in permitting those to find the correct source. Searches for Rick Steeves will generally turn up "Rick Steeves" pages, which primarily are for the same individual: Rick SteevesRickss03 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, please read the policy on writing your own autobiography at WP:COI. Understood your concern about disambiguation. The idea of Wikipedia is not to disambiguation from every "George Bush" in the world, but only those George Bushes who have a Wikipedia article. And that is determined if they are notable or not. So we discuss if Rick Steeves is notable. If not, there is no reason to disambiguate with Rick Steves. -- GreenC 00:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - I could find no reliable sources to indicate notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Self-published material, and the claim of "2016 world champion at Roborally" should be ignored as trivia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As aboveSlatersteven (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and not need to redirect.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2017 (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. joe decker ^talk 01:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Mangalore[edit]

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

Unsourced listcruft. This should be a category - having it as a list adds nothing. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a whole lot more that I think are just as worthy bringing to the discussion:
There are far too many lists on educational institutions in cities, districts and states as I just found out in the drop down list. Literally all of these come under the Unsourced listcruft category. If you are thinking of deleting this list article, I feel all of those can also be added instead of just deleted one or two.PremKudva^Talk 03:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that these may not be required. But there are many articles like this such as List of high schools in New York City and List of colleges and universities in New York City, List of active and defunct high schools in the Archdiocese of Detroit, List of high schools in the Cincinnati metropolitan area. If we take a decision, it would be good to have a collective decision for all.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - They need clean-up, not deletion. Have a look at what I did to List of educational institutions in Mangalore. List of educational institutions in Hyderabad (India) and List of educational institutions in Salem, India should be moved, the DAB is not needed. Sam Sailor 05:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking NYC shools as an example, that list article has sources and expands upon the article titles alone. It's justified as a list.

This article, and the others listed here, do none of that. They go no further than an automatic category page would. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:SAL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN, valuable navigational aid for the reader. And we do have a cat at ~~Category:Universities and colleges in Mangalore~~ Category:Education in Mangalore and subcats. Sam Sailor 05:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Ammended Sam Sailor 09:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What "value" does it create for a reader, that is any more than what we get far more easily from the category page? I agree that "a page which lists these articles" is valuable and necessary. But that can either be a category (which we already have) or a fuller list article, like NYC schools, which this is not and we appear unlikely to get. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I will quote from WP:CLN: "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others." and call WP:NOTDUPE to attention: "Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Whatever state some unlinked list article about NYC schools is in, could serve as an inspiration for other list articles, but it is not a reason for deletion. Sam Sailor 09:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP, and a useful navigational aid as per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article just needs cleanup, not deletion. The subject passes WP:STAND, and if we have a category that does not mean we cannot have a list for the topic (WP:CLN). Pratyush (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live 8 broadcasters[edit]

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

Probably doesn't warrant its own article, especially since this is for a one-time event. Jc86035 (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable aspect of the Live 8 concerts. Some information on broadcasting records could be incorporated into the main Live 8 article. Eloquai (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I don't think anyone cares who did (or did not) show an event from more than 10 years ago. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Unreferenced and unnecessary trivia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 6 December 2017 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Guilbert[edit]

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

I have a feeling inmy (not coconut) water that if I CSD this entirely unremarkable businessman the notice will be removed because there is a reference or two. They are all about the business or product, sez I. And the coconut water tastes of spam to me, btw. TheLongTone (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references rise to the true level of reliable general sources needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, WP:ORG and WP:GNG. I found two sentences in a longer article in Vogue, but other references turning up in a gNews search seem to be confined to industry publications such as BevNet and Food Navigator. I think Inc. meets the reliable source definition, but that one reference in the article seems to be the only one, thus insufficient to establish notability. Last, the tone of the article is wholly promotional. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail. The company might be notable, the co-founder does not seem to be - not nearly enough google-news hits - and most of them are passing/interviews in relation to the product/company.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Passing mentions a-plenty, but no in-depth coverage. Kleuske (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources that I could find which mention it seem all to pertain to Techweek (conference), but that is not enough to keep as notability is not inherited. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails CORPDEPTH, most of those refs seem tangential to the subject. South Nashua (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2017 (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. joe decker ^talk 01:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power Politics (Wight book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Sourcing is a sham. Kleuske (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The current state of sourcing in the article is poor. However, I can find multiple reliable sources that directly discuss the book's content. I don't have much experience applying WP:NBOOK, but being the subject of two published book review articles in academic journals would seem to satisfy criterion #1. In addition to the one review article cited on the page, I can find others by M Donelan, B PORTER, and DM MacKinnon. This is in addition to direct references to the book presented in at least three books. This meets our basic inclusion criteria at the least. I'll update the page with more (and better) citations as I get time over the next few days. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Robert James Martin Wight (1913 – 1972), also known as Martin Wight, was one of the foremost British scholars of International Relations in the twentieth century, author of Power Politics (1946, revised and expanded edition 1978) as well as the seminal essay "Why is there no International Theory?" (first published in the journal International Relations in 1960 and republished in the edited collection Diplomatic Investigations in 1966). The present Wikipedia article on Power Politics provides an enlightening overview of Wight's theses on international relations which have lost none of their relevance since first publication. The book's existence deserves to be noted on Wikipedia. I hope that my today's copyedit of the article will help enhance its attractiveness to readers. Nihil novi (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, reviewed by International Relations here and Millennium: Journal of International Studies here (sorry, subscription required:() Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heberto Andrade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG. Bullpen catchers are not coaches covered by WP:BASE/N per WP:BASEBALL consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade (2nd nomination) both consist of a majority vote of which is keep. I'm well aware that this does not mean an article should stick around. I'm aware of the many times that a majority vote was still turned down. But I include this because many users in the past have made some pretty good arguments. Those nominating this article for deletion, or even keep, should at least take a look at the past discussions in the past nominations' entries and read the points that were made. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well this is disappointing. Though I can't argue with the past nominations. Andrade does seem to be one of the least notable people of the Pirates staff. Nonetheless, I'd like to ask why Euclides Rojas meets the requirements, and why Andrade doesn't, compared to Rojas. In other words, could it be explained what Rojas has that Andrade doesn't? They practically have the same achievements and they're both bullpen pitchers for the Pirates. I know Mubosh thinks bullpen pitchers aren't notable, but I'd just like to question what Euclides has that Andrade does not. Hopefully this'll better my understanding of who needs an article and who doesn't, regarding my future article creations. A little help from the admins'd be appreciated. 👌 Last time I compared Wikipedia pages, I was scorned by an admin for whatever reason. He claimed he had no obligation to delve into the research, and I suppose did not feel like reading the article I linked and figuring it out. I don't think it takes that much work though... so I don't know how other admins would feel about helping me out here. Can someone list what Rojas has, to deserve an article, that Andrade lacks? How is Rojas more notable according to Wikipedia's criteria? Regards. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be that Rojas hasn't been nominated for deletion yet (by nominating one article for deletion, no one is saying that a different article actually meets WP notability requirements). However, just at a glance, I see some differences. Rojas may have a case for notability via WP:NBASE for his participation as a star player with the Cuban national team, or he may meet WP:GNG because there are full-length articles (one I see is in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) that discuss Rojas, his career and his status as one of the early players to defect from Cuba. Note that neither subject is a "bullpen pitcher" - Rojas is a bullpen coach and Andrade is a bullpen catcher, a non-playing and essentially non-coaching role in which the subjects don't usually get significant coverage in reliable sources. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexanderHovanec: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Bullpen coaches are covered by BASE/N because the presumption is there are sources, and a quick Google search for Rojas does turn up sources, while one for Andrade does not. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page was already deleted once. Nothing new added. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the other two discussions. The 2nd discussion was a clear cut delete and the 1st had some keep votes which basically amounted to “he’s listed on the ‘Coaches’ page on the website” and “I bet he offers good advice”. The problem is that even if we overlooked WP:BASE/N, he didn’t pass WP:GNG and there just not enough out there to flesh out an article. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am glad we are finnally moving away from some of our past overly broad inclusion criteria. Bullpen catchers are just not notable. If he does not pass the baseball notability guidelines and he is only know for baseball, we delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VIMBY[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are generally brief mentions. reddogsix (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,,, A whole lot of corporate spam for another company, per nom. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion (PROD previously declined).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maredo[edit]

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

Deprodded with rationale "42 restaurants; take to AfD". I don't think the size matters, and anyway it just indicates it is a medium-sized company, nothing encyclopedic here. No sources, I don't see anything except press-release like business as usual mentions or such. See also: WP:YELLOWPAGES, WP:NCORP, WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for this article per the reasons given by the nominator. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've had the size-doesn't-matter deletion arguments before. They're not convincing and they haven't been convincing in previous AfDs. In my opinion, a chain of 46 restaurants (as it now appears to have) is significant enough in its market to qualify for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a bit more information on the chain in the German Wikipedia article. Doing a gBook search, I was able to find a mention going back to 1985, unfortunately because the book predates the internet, little is visible in the snippet view. And then there's a discussion of the acquisition of the chain here. And, because it is a German chain, there is reference material available only in German. Sure, the article can use some work, but I think the subject meets WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough reference in the sources by Glane23 to show meeeting GNG. Running for over 40 years, having over 40 chains will surely get them coverage. Alo another thing important is Germany-related topic generally have fewer ources in English and more in German. So google searching with English name will not give the true picture–Ammarpad (talk)
Keep -- a significant chain in Germany. According to this source:

"According to ECM data, Maredo currently employs around 1,500 people in 46 steakhouses and, together with Block House, is the leading steak house chain in Germany."

It's a credible claim of significance and sufficient sources very likely exist in German. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2017 (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. Despite the numbers, most of the keep reasons have little policy-based reasoning, and consensus is that the sourcing just isn't enough to merit its own article. ansh 666 07:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CricketArchive[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources - even a sentence or two- about it; only numerous citations to it. Fails WP:NWEB unless sources can be found. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The website may be a source for some sport stats, but it doesn't make it notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move the article to draft instead of a delete as the website may have the potential to expand and grow further in the future. By then, there will be enough context and content with reliable sources. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The website has been there for 14 years; the article for 12. I really don't think there's much potential that the website will suddenly become notable; not in the 6 months till G13 kicks in. No point in wasting time in keeping a draft around. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I overlooked the fact that the website existed for so long. If so, then a delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One might also consider that Cricket Archive is the sole source for scores of WP articles on cricketers. This article is linked to hundreds of articles. If the website is a credible, reliable source for wikipedia, would it not be notable? Rhadow (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a reason why WP:N and WP:RS are not identical and that is because being Wikipedia-notable and being a reliable source are completely separate things. Jenks24 (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it meets WP:NMAG#4 "The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works." power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you please verify that statement?2001:A61:370B:2E01:3C34:315C:D62:9854 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a periodical so that essay doesn't really apply; there are no independent sources so according to that essay it still may be not suitable - all it says is the promotion that it is the "most comprehensive.." because there are no independent sources. Not only that, it's not used that much. Used for various articles and some books, but only a few of academic work. Those articles are usually not very significant either. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From NMAG: evidenced by citing reliable sources which write significant commentary about the periodical in relation to the specific criteria and It is possible for a periodical to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- After re-reading, the wording of NMAG states that it doesn't apply here. I disagree with that position. Cricketarchive is widely cited in Wikipedia articles and in research papers on cricket-related topics, and is updated regularly. That should be sufficient for it to be considered notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First and best website bringing together the many statistics from notable (first-class, List A) cricket matches in one place, therefore a significant resource for sport historians. It is also updated by significant authorities within the sports itself (national and local cricket clubs feed in directly) and by knowledgeable commentators. Johnlp (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suggest to keep this article in English Wikipedia as it is used as one of the most reliable cricket websites used in WikiProject Cricket. I am shocked that this particular article has been nominated for deletion after 12 years since its creation. CricketArchive is a notable website and it is used as the primary source along with Cricinfo in creating most of the articles in Wikipedia. On the other hand, CricketArchive stores disability related cricket scorecards as well such as Deaf Cricket World Cup scorecards. So CricketArchive website deserves the article in English Wikipedia. Also the particular article is available in other language Wikipedias, so it should not be deleted in English Wikipedia. Abishe (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is possibly important. However there are no independent sources that talk about it, which is the criteria for WP:NWEB. Because of that, it is also quite promotional. We need at least one independent source to talk about it . Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Being used a source does not really confer notability, at least in the absence of even one independent source describing it. See also my reply to power above. It is not suitable as there are no independent sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being "quite promotional" is not ground for outright deletion. Once article is not G11'able, that means the promotion can be removed, even by you. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very important resource for cricket. Maybe we can't find sources online but surely they exists. Störm (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Galobtter: Now, I think article is in better shape with proper citations necessary to pass WP:NWEB. Maybe this is enough for closure? Störm (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only see two lines in telegraph that in any way is a source. That's not enough for WP:NWEB - being used/mentioned in media sources doesn't mean that much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you are going to disregard mentions in national daily newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Irish Times, that's going to set a very high bar for articles, and there would probably be thousands that would need to be deleted. JH (talk page) 10:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is essentially one line + a quote from the website. That's nowhere near what we need. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC) I'm not setting the bar - that's WP:N. Thousands would actually need to be deleted, because there are thousands of non-notable articles among the 5 million that we have :) NWEB needs significant coverage - not just trivial description of the site or mere mentions. This is also to make the article not promotional and not rely solely or almost entirely on the website's own description of itself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With its important to Cricket in general and as recognized database. Also the the sources in the article do indeed establish notability and WP:NWEB is met. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. I can find lots and lots of example of the website being mentioned briefly in articles in all sorts of places. Many of these essentially boil down to things such as "According to cricketarchive.com, my go-to place for such trivia..." (Guardian). What i can't find - and, believe me, I've looked - is anything that deals with the site itself in an in-depth way. If such passing mentions are enough to meet NWEB then fair enough, but they don't appear to do enough to meet it as I read it right now.

I have no doubt that CricketArchive is useful, reasonably comprehensive etc... I've no doubt that it's a reasonable source to use for many things - and that's what many of the keep votes here seem to amount to. But I don't see even vaguely in-depth coverage that would persuade me that the website - as a website - would meet the relevant notability criteria, let along something such as WP:ORG or the GNG. It concerns me that a number of the keep votes here don't refer to the relevant notability criteria. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the keep voters have said that sources about them exist, but none of them have actually produced any substantial sources about CA. As such, it seems the coverage of CA is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources already in the article. Also for "insufficient to meet GNG" opinion; that's very subjective statement, how many sources are sufficient? –Ammarpad (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is subjective but in this case there's not enough one source that has even a full paragraph on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while it has a large number of trivial mentions in reliable sources, mostly to cite cricket statistics, there is no evidence of the website being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because it's useful as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles doesn't mean the site is notable enough for an article. TripleRoryFan (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More material has been added, just in case anyone would want to review their vote in the light of it. Johnlp (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having some important people does not give 'em notability; praise that it's database is "unmatched", would indicate that sources could be found, but they haven't been. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing the AfD - it's always really helpful when people do that! My gut response is that I'm still unconvinced that NWEB is met - specifically whether, "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Beyond non-trivial, if we were to take the ACS comments into account I have obvious issues with "multiple" and I'm concerned about the relationship between the ACS and CA - is there an "independent" relationship or are they, in many ways, the same core people involved? I'm really unsure about this and would welcome some clarity - certainly the ACS website seems to suggest that there is an informal working relationship between the two at least. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

brief summary of the nature of the content is trivial coverage - I would say it is trivial too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree - the ACS stuff is the most detailed I've seen: the rest is certainly trivial; if there were multiple sources in the sort of detail the ACS has then I might be convinced, but I have real concerns about the independence of the source - both founder of CA are ACS members and have won ACS awards for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are only two websites that claim comprehensive statistics on a sport, then one is best and the other second best. It makes neither of them reliable or notable, which is why no reviewer has written a comprehensive review. Lots of people use them, yes, and many quote from them, too. It doesn't make the subject website notable. Rhadow (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is no consensus currently and I don't think there will be any. It will be better to close it as no consensus. Störm (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana. I will note that List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana is currently PROD-tagged, so this will be deleted if that goes, but that's fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boothill Cemetery (Powder River County, Montana)[edit]

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

Local, very small cemetery without evidence of any notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana. Now whether or not that should exist is an open question, but Montana, at least, has an entire set of them... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per The Bushranger - no evidence of standalone notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 9 December 2017 (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. ansh 666 07:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydee (comics)[edit]

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

A mostly walled garden of COI creations of comics (series, characters) of limited notability, reissued and continued by the article creator (on his own publishing house), sourced to webpages by the same person. I can find passing mentions, but no clear indication of notability in reliable, independent sources. Fram (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Brigade Temporelle
L'Autre (comics)
Futura (magazine)
C.L.A.S.H.
Jaleb
Starlock
Wampus
Zembla (comics)
Homicron
Phenix (comics)
Kabur

~~:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all these related to anime and manga? Striking that from delsort AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage in reliable, independent sources; fails GNG. Cjhard (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, no indication they are notable in any way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the two sites used as references (Hexagon Comics and coolfrenchcomics.com), all I found was a self-published book "BD de Kiosque & science-fiction". power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:40, 13 December 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Aggarwal[edit]

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

Was prodded, but due to its history, better discuss it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BLP, WP:Notability and mainly WP:GNG. HINDWIKI • CHAT 00:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I have stated in the prod reason, this fails WP:NBIO. Significant coverage not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He does has authored some work that is cited - [19] (not all the hits are him (common name it would seem) - but many are). However, coverage of him as an individual does not seem meet SIGCOV, and his work does not seem to merit PROF/AUTHOR.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2017 (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. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino international singing competition winners[edit]

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

This doesn't seem like a notable topic, and most of the artists listed do not have their own articles. Jc86035 (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable topic, non notable people. Ajf773 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Filipinos winning in international singing competitions as well as domestic competitions held outside the Philippines (such as X Factor, American Idol and its foreign counterparts) are frequently covered by the national media. It is a subject of interest. The article just needs a clearer inclusion criteria and citations.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hariboneagle927: Even if there is media coverage it doesn't mean this is a suitable list (or even a suitable category – there isn't a Category:American singing competition winners or even Category:Singing competition winners). If the artists listed are indeed notable then they should have their own articles and you would probably have to find the intersection of people from the Philippines and singing competition winners from a Wikidata or PetScan query. Jc86035 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for the article has no notability. An obvious fancruft. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2017 (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. Sandstein 22:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Potter[edit]

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

Prolific author of sports books but lacks notability - can't find any reliable sources providing significant coverage of either him or his work., so fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Only references in article are his own publications. Jellyman (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's certainly regarded by the Scottish media as the source of historic information for Celtic, obviously referencing his books but also seeking him out for quotes on milestones, comparisons etc relating to current events. So I have seen his name a lot recently as historic records fall. News search results here. Obviously it's all in the same context so I don't know if that is sufficient notability, but his name does appear in many reliable sources independent of works published by him. Crowsus (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware he's a respected writer and good at what he does, but we really need coverage about him to justify an article, not just where he's quoted as an authority on other things. Jellyman (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Keep WP:HEY, I made a start, added a few sources, national papers in Scotland where they do read the lad, and tweaked the text a little according to the sources. He doesn't seem to use his middle initial much. Plus, go look for David Potter in an Anglophone search engine. Use keywords. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant and influential writer on Scottish sports. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The Scotsman reference (the last citation) in the article seems to demonstrate some notability of the author, although some better third-party coverage would be helpful. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep borderline but better sources have been added during the discussion Atlantic306 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HeadSpin[edit]

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

Sources don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH and are merely regurgitated press releases/entirely unsatisfactory e.g. Bloomberg profiles, Crunchbase profiles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me understand how to make this post better. I deleted the sources mentioned above (Bloomberg, Crunchbase) and added another news source in thier place. I tried to pattern entry after New Relic Is it okay now? Kate523 20:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is written too much like an advertistment. Somewhat like a LinkedIn profile. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like a press release, and is sourced by them, thus making it non-neutral and not sufficiently verifiable. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 12:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Edited again based on comments from others. All claims are verifiable. Kate523 —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable by independent sources, thus fails WP:GNG. No significant can average of the firm, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and it is actually a promotional article of small, non notable firm, and that's against core policy WP:NOTPROMO –Ammarpad (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2017 (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 procedural close.. Drafts are discussed at WP:MFD. Articles for deletion is solely for content in main namespace. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Views on Trump and Fascism[edit]

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

This article is as an astonishing achievement, and a stunning monument to the human spirit. Nearly 1175 references, and one of the greatest works of scholarship anywhere on this project. A must-keep. Self-nominating to pre-empt the haters. This is what an encyclopedia can, and should be, friends. If this isn't what an encyclopedia is for, then what is? Future historians will thank you.An Anonymous Editor (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marvelous addition to world literature and human knowledge. Obviously passes notability guidelines. The prose sizzles. Deeply erudite work.An Anonymous Editor (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2017 (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. Sandstein 22:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Central Park[edit]

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

Per WP:N. Park is still in development and fundraising stages - nothing seems particularly notable about either stage, leading me to think this is WP:TOOSOON for the park to have its own page. Comatmebro (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The park is still in the concept stage. For the park to be notable, this article would need to address controversies about whether to create the park. As per above, WP:TOOSOON, unless article can focus on any controversies. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (warning: little rant coming:)), "the park is still in development and fundraising stages", "the park is still in the concept stage", so?, the same can be said about SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure, Mars Base Camp, Deep Space Transport, and others as they are in the "development", "fundraising" and/or "concept" stages, but we don't want to delete them, "yes coola but they have heaps of sources"....oh!:) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, well here are "heaps of sources" (some may be deemed unsuitable?) about the park and cap parks:

Engineering News-Record California - "Los Angeles Begins EIR on Visionary Hollywood Central Park Project", Gizmodo - "Five Cities Turning Ugly Overpasses Into Vibrant Parks", Urban Land - "Cap Parks", Curbed Los Angeles - "Plan to cap the 101 freeway in Downtown LA with a park moves forward", Los Angeles Times - "Freeway cap parks can be L.A.'s High Line" (op. ed.), Unrbanize.LA - "Downtown Freeway Cap Park Reemerges", "Exploring Glendale's Freeway Cap Park", Next City - "Seattle Architect Says the Time Is Right for This Highway-Capping Park Design", The Dirt - "In Los Angeles, Freeway Cap Park Plans Move Forward", Time Out Las Angeles - "A look at the proposed plans for Glendale's freeway cap park", Archinect - "More details on Glendale's "freeway cap park" emerge", btw where is the article: Cap park (any article creators out there are more than welcome to use any of the above sources:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. There are now many, including Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. Hope someone writes it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think a "cap park" is the same thing as a "Linear park". I don't see any difference between the two, and have created the redirect, but if someone thinks they are different, they can always develop an article using the excellent sources above.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I changed the category on the page to Category:Proposed parks in the United States. Sourcing is sufficient to keep this article. If the project gets cancelled, we update the text and create a category similar to Category:Failed museum proposals in the United States and move it there, as was done, for example, with The Boston Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep per extensive coverage in numerous sources as discussed above. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the numerous sources provided by Coolabahapple. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cory Davis[edit]

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

While it seems to have marginally better sources than it did when tagged in 2009, it still only has at best one fully indepdent, reliable source. This is just not enough to pass GNG, and his roles as an actor clearly do not add to notability. His role as an activist is the only place where he has a chance for notability, but my search on google did not show any sources that suggested he has actually achieved notability as an activist. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the ABC news piece is a good rs but more is needed. He has some prominent roles in TV movies and lesser known films so going for a weak keep. This version mentions his award winning short film. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR (for now) and not noted as an activist. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 05:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding lots of coverage of his acting roles as well as coverage of his sex trafficking activism and coverage of his movie project. here for example is very substantial coverage about him and his work from a bylined new source. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial house of Khora Seyal[edit]

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

I hope this and corresponding articles created by a SPA are not hoax but i am failed to find any coverage in RS. Saqib (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either very insignificant or more likely a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nawab Muhammad Safiullah UmarAli hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate-e-uzma of Khora Seyal[edit]

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

I hope this and corresponding articles created by a SPA are not hoax but i am failed to find any coverage in RS. Saqib (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - at least nothing in my searches. Fails WP:V. Störm (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nawab Muhammad Safiullah UmarAli hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Shah Jahan Bahadur[edit]

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

I hope this and corresponding articles created by a SPA are not hoax but i am failed to find any coverage in RS. Saqib (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nawab Muhammad Safiullah UmarAli hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nawabzada Nizam Din Khan[edit]

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

I hope this and corresponding articles created by a SPA are not hoax but i am failed to find any coverage in RS. cited source doesn't say anything about the subject. Saqib (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This really looks like a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nawab Muhammad Safiullah UmarAli hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Polo Khan[edit]

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

I hope this and corresponding articles created by a SPA are not hoax but i am failed to find any coverage in RS. Saqib (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a hoax to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nawab Muhammad Safiullah UmarAli hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahr Bano Begum[edit]

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

I hope this and corresponding articles created by a SPA are not hoax but i am failed to find any coverage in RS. Saqib (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering the only source connected to this in reality is a wordpress blog, this looks to me like a total hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nawab Muhammad Safiullah UmarAli hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janjuhana Family[edit]

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

I hope this and corresponding articles created by a SPA are not hoax but i am failed to find any coverage in RS. Saqib (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - at least nothing in my searches. Fails WP:V. Störm (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nawab Muhammad Safiullah UmarAli hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Muhammad Safiullah UmarAli[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited and this BLP of a 16 year old head of a family, by a SPA contain mostly OR. the SPA created some corresponding articles which could be hoax... Saqib (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remain unconvinced that any of this is real and not a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blakkman[edit]

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

Non-notable musician lacking non-trivial, significant support. Article created by COI - the artist's record company. reddogsix (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. The references in the article are sufficient to demonstrate significant coverage in independent sources. e.g. [20][21][22]. Pburka (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Pburka - We must be reading different WP:ANYBIO sections. Just which of the three sections does this article fall into. None as far as I can see. reddogsix (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I should have referred to WP:BASIC. Pburka (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources mon. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing enough coverage (or other indication of notability) to justify an article at this time. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 22:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Sulaiman Al-Ashqar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG nothing on him except the eulogy in site with not clear reliablity Shrike (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Looking at the arwiki + a check in google books and scholar seems to indicate he quite possible passes on WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF (was dean at the Sharia faculty in Zarqa University). Due to the nature of the subject area, most of the sources are in Arabic, however he does seem to be mentioned quite a bit in book refs. It also seems he was translated quite a bit - google-books with Ashqar as author (mainly translated) - which is typically a sign of author notability. I am qualifying this !vote as weak as my personal ability to evaluate the notability of contemporary primarily Arabic Islamic scholars is limited in relation to other subject matters.Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 22:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future Sonics[edit]

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

Little coverage which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep from NAMM/TEC award (http://legacy.tecawards.org/hof/10techofdetails.html), but willing to be convinced otherwise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have repaired link rot and determined that, in addition to prestigious industry awards, there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the coverage cited is anything but PR/business as usual level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: keep in mind that Future Sonics did their most notable and groundbreaking work in the early 1980s. It's going to be difficult to find coverage of that in online sources. ~Kvng (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Then if offline sources are found we can look at them. A lot of English language 'offline' stuff is in fact online (Google Books). We cannot assume that sources exist. If they do not, and nobody can (or bothers) to find them, the topic fails GNG. It is pretty simple. The burden of proof is on the article creator (aka spammer, in many of those promotional company article cases). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage would be in audio enthusiast magazines and trade publications. These are not on Google Books. Also, have you tried WP:AGF? ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I'm having trouble finding sources beyond press releases, but it does seem that serveral well known artists use their products.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided - there are not enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - but I am unfamiliar with the awards. These to me appear to indicate the company is notable and significant in their field and as such, I'm leaning towards a Keep but will wait to see if any more comments in relation to the awards are made. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving a TEC Award is a very respectable achievement for an audio manufacturer. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2017 (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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PB Djarum[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, poorly referenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable organization. One of the oldest badminton club in Indonesia.Stvbastian (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep poorly referenced is not reason for deletion. There are more coverage in this and this sources. In addition, the national language of Indonesia is Bahasa Indonesia and with its massive population English is not among its top-spoken languages which means more sources are to be found in these languages and not in English. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See articles in de and id. Top club in Indonesia. Florentyna (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2017 (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. But stub and cleanup. Sandstein 22:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ROM flashing[edit]

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

The subject has no significance to have an article. The article is heavily unreferenced, and the sources mentioned don't meet WP:RS. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubbify - Notable topic, but article is written as a badly referenced how-to. Current coverage on WP seems to consist of Firmware#Flashing, which definitely does not contain all that could be said on the topic; separate article would likely be viable if done in suitable encyclopedic style. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: In that case, it is better to blank and redirect to the above mentioned section. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and needs major clean-up. I actually gave the article an advert tag as I felt that the article was shabbily written which made it looked like a how-to manual. However, the topic is notable and existential and hence should still be kept. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject but the article needs major clean-up. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2017 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K103CX[edit]

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

Station is fake, no station with this callsign appears in the FCC database. Furthermore, 87.9 would be channel 200, as in K200AA. K103CX would be 78.5 on the FM dial. Broadcast FM radio in the US only goes as low as 88.1 with just one station (K200AA) on 87.9.

The 87.9 frequency is not available for other stations to move to or new stations to begin broadcasting from, per FCC rules. K200AA being on 87.9 (and KSFH previously being on that frequency) were flukes when those stations were pushed off their previous frequencies and 87.9 was the only frequency available.

This incorrect information is also on the KHTI page as well. Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:20 on November 29, 2017 (UTC) 03:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can't find any evidence of its existence. --Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax—the image lists a completely different frequency, 103.9. The image might be a hoax as well. 165.91.12.190 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 22:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WingtraOne[edit]

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

Non-notable spam article written by a declared connected contributor as an advertisement. It is excluded from Wikipedia both by WP:NOT and by failing WP:SPIP. The sourcing here is all trade press, blogs, and other recycled press releases. Even if it met our notability threshold (which it doesn't), it should be deleted as a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a product. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A preliminary news search didn't show much more than PR release and non-notable blogs. Additionally, phrases like "WingtraOne product as available now" give me concern about the NPOV of the author. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the talk page of the article I had highlighted four sources that help establish notability here ([23], [24], [25], [26]). Some of this is trade press stuff but mostly has bylines so generally considered reasonable sources. As for the other concerns, I assume this isn't WP:G11 unambiguously promotional or we wouldn't be here. Any other WP:PROMOTIONAL issues are not so severe as to require WP:TNT and can be fixed through editing. Also we don't delete things just because there are paid or COI editors involved. Drones are a hot topic and coverage of different models will be appreciated by readers. This is a young article that needs improvement, so let's improve it, not WP:DEMOLISH it. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- G11 is not the only way we can delete spam. See both WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. This AfC acceptance was grossly inappropriate and this article is actively harming Wikipedia. Yes, lets demolish it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Actively harming Wikipedia" - ((citation needed)) on this hyperbolic statement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gladly, see WP:5P1 and WP:NOTSPAM, and WP:BOGO. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion and this article was written by a connected editor to promote the subject. It is not notable and by helping their marketing department get top placement in Google we are undermining the credibility of this website. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - When there is a policy that says WP:COI/WP:PAID editors may not edit at all, that will be a valid argument. Also, when you attempt to discredit another editor's argument on the basis of their citing only an essay, while citing an essay as a key part of your own argument, that says things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        BOGO is not part of my argument for deletion, I would never use it as such. It was an answer to your question about how advertising actively hurts the project. Also, policy already covers this Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,,, Big spam on a big amount of advertising, this isn't helping anyone here. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean WP:PROMOTIONAL. If you want to advocate deleting for this reason you have to make a case for why it is better to delete than improve the current article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT and WP:WHATISTOBEDONE. Deletion is a perfectly acceptable choice for dealing with spam, and has become the default in XfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the specific WP:NOT you're referring to is WP:PROMOTIONAL; Follow links and see if we're seeing the same thing here. I beleive WP:ATD gives more detailed and actionable advice than WP:WHATISTOBEDONE. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is a perfectly acceptable choice for dealing with spam, and has become the default in XfDs. Just because everybody's doing something doesn't make it right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes it does. That is what consensus is. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completely disagree with the line that "this AfC acceptance was grossly inappropriate" and to be honest I am slightly surprised to see it written by Tony. This draft is very borderline in terms of notability and it is not completely unreasonable to see a reviewer accepting this. I also ignored the promotionalism- that can be improved and doesn't require deleting the whole article to do so. The issue is that the subject is fundamentally not notable- the four sources listed above are what I judge to be insufficient and largely reprints of press releases, which don't help to demonstrate notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment regarding notability: one, while VTOL aircrafts e.g. Harrier Jump Jet have been experimented with and developed in the past, it has taken some time for this technology to translate to the realm of drones. Currently, professional drones either follow Fixed-wing aircraft design or Rotorcraft designs. Reason behind drafting this article was to throw some light on one of the few mature drone technologies that emulate VTOL design (i.e. hybrid of Fixed-wing aircraft and Rotorcraft design). That WingtraOne is notable in this regard can be verified with a simple search for "VTOL drones for surveying" etc. Secondly, some of the sources cited such as this one [27] from Neue Zürcher Zeitung and [28] (edit: another independent source: [29] and its written summary [30]) are reputable, independent sources and not press releases, but perhaps not checked so far because of language/regional reasons. As the technology is based in Switzerland, there are reputable sources like these to be found in German (and WP:N does allow for sources other than English). Would also point to the editorial integrity of sources such as this one: [31] and this one: [32]. For the technology itself, there are references to research papers published in IEEE, e.g. [33], [34], [35]. Would agree that the article can be improved with regards to WP:PROMOTIONAL and this is also indicated by the Start-Class label as assigned by Kvng, but would otherwise vote to keep as it talks about technology (VTOL drone) that is starting to mature and is likely to see more entries in the future. Adyasha D (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In general, "a specific type of aircraft that has flown" has been considered to be prima facie evidence of notability; the explosion of mini-/micro-/nano-/itsybitsyteenyweenie-drones has made that a bit wobbly in their situations, though, as radio-controlled aircraft do not count, in Wikipedia terms, as aircraft - where is the line between "aircraft" and "toy"? That said, once a little elbow grease was applied to some very simple formatting of the article, suddenly it looks much more like an article and much less like an advertisement. And while the WP:BOMBARDMENT of references does include a lot of the "not intellectually independent" types that are in vogue at AfD to be called out, I believe there is enough here - perhaps just enough, but enough nontheless - to establish WP:GNG compliance. The article does, in fact, need a lot more polish and pruning of the spamosity that is in the aforementioned bombardment, but AfD is not for cleanup - and, at this point, all that is needed is cleanup, not deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are saying that there are no policy based reasons to keep? Considering that the notability guideline makes it clear failure of NOT is a reason for deletion. You also seem to be calling for us to ignore NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND because you want to allow non-independent sources to count. Deletion is not cleanup is an essay, and spam is not something that can be cleaned up. By allowing it here, we are actively undermining Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive The Bushranger is making a WP:NOTCLEANUP argument. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not policy based, correct. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Spam is not something that can be cleaned up" is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument: WP:SPAM, in fact, explicitly states: "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view." - so Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines disagree with your assessment. The policy-based reason to keep is WP:PRESERVE. As for "WP:NOTCLEANUP is only an essay", WP:CONSENSUS - which said WP:ONLYESSAY documents - is policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False, we delete spam per WP:DEL14 and WP:DON'T PRESERVE all the time. It is up for the participants in an AfD to determine whether it is worth doing that. Deletion of borderline notable topics because of promotionalism is becoming the normal consensus in AfDs. Additionally, ignoring the promo aspect if we shall, this article is entirely non-notable. My point with ONLYESSAY is that cute redirects that don't address the actual policy arguments for deletion (obvious failure of NOT, and failure of the GNG) are not valid arguments. If this survives AfD, it will be the exception to the norm, and will likely be back here within a few months, because as it stands now, there is no actual reason to include this in Wikipedia even from the most generous inclusionist standpoint. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Kvng and Bushranger. The article may have started bad, but it seems like it can be fixed to be a good addition to the 'pedia. Sario528 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have normally been very inclusive for vehicles of all sorts; I'm not sure we shoud apply it similarly to drones, but this is close enough to notability . I do not consider the present version promotional beyond what is necessarily implied by the subject . DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't believe that unmanned vehicles should get the same benefit of the doubt (i.e. inclusivity). Otherwise, this is strictly promotionalism for a nn subject; the sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone article on the product. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage exists in reliable trade publications for drones and GPS - meets WP:RS. I just added info from CeBIT; most coverage is in either academic or industry sources, with an absence of subjective promotional verbiage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Lam[edit]

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

No indication of notability, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article looks more like a tabloid article and a LinkedIn profile combined rather than something to be shelved on Wikipedia. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Makes no claims of notability. I can find no reliable sources and consider this individual does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that's incorrect. There's a multitude of articles concerning this individual and she is newsworthy. My suggestion is the article is moved back to a draft and I will work on expanding this stub with further sources. Cashannam (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cashannam: Please list the articles that form the multitude you write of. Samsara 00:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more but here's a start. Cashannam (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://hk.asiatatler.com/society/elly-lam-cover-interview-november-2016

https://hk.asiatatler.com/style/We-Deconstruct-It-Girl-Eleanor-Lam%27s-Best-Looks

https://hk.asiatatler.com/generation-t/2016-list/eleanor-1

http://www.baccarat-magazine.com/elly-lam-jc/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dF1-wckyg

http://hashtaglegend.com/post/elly-lam-stuns-roger-vivier-spring-summer-ss17

http://hashtaglegend.com/post/elly-lam-cartier-love-collection

https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/malaysia-tatler/20170801/284374084440901

http://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/people-events/article/2082443/dior-launches-lacquer-stick-shines-intense-colour

Please see WP:GNG. These are not reliable sources (with the exception of SCMP), and the coverage is extremely light (not in-depth). Citobun (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The coverage is light, because she's a socialite. Tatler and Hashtag Legend are akin to People magazine or the Daily Mail or even Vanity Fair. She's a B to C list celebrity in Hong Kong and is covered in the same sorts of publications that write about her celebrity counterparts in major western capitals. I don't see why they're worthy of encyclopedia articles but Eleanor isn't. Cashannam (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That "other stuff exists" is not an argument that the subject of this article meets the criteria for inclusion on this encyclopedia, which can be found at WP:GNG. If the subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, then the article ought to be deleted. Citobun (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "coverage is light because she is socialite", that means failing WP:GNG. Because basic notability criterion is having significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. You've good intention for creating this, but Wikipedia is not place to help upcoming socialite to achieve fame and wide coverage. It only documents biographies of already notable ones. WP:TOOSOON also applies here, you can recreate it after some years if she receive more coverage than " light one" now –Ammarpad (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable. There is significant coverage about her in multiple secondary sources. I posted nine articles about her above and that's only a small selection. Cashannam (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2017 (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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kellari Hospitality Group[edit]

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

Sources are either the subject's own site or PR releases falling quite short of WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE didn't garner much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. ——Chalk19 (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2017 (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. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sony flashes for Multi Interface Shoe[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Listcruft, the list is not notable and is of little interest to most people. Wikipedia is not a database of every product ever made. Rusf10 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. We don't need a list of every single product derivative, especially when specific content can be found elsewhere. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Comment - these two lists are transcluded in several other articles (iISO flash shoe, Multi Interface Shoe, and Sony α). ansh 666 02:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this mostly to encourage people to comment on the transclusion issue noted by ansh666.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I would suggest deleting the lists in the other articles as well, its information that doesn't belong here.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial lists, information covered at Sony Alpha. Could discuss on the relevant talk page whether or not it should be included there either. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for it looks more like a trivial fun fact, fancruv list by heart-core fans. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2017 (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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANTTEX[edit]

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

Appears to be an WP:Autobiography with original research. Non-notable biography, I can't find references beyond a few albums listings.Many of the references in the article are not even valid (especially the ones claiming he worked with well-known artists) since they have no reference to the subject of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a forum to publish autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2017 (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 Ontario Minor Hockey Association. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whitby Wildcats[edit]

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

Amateur youth sporting organization that fails WP:NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the league, which appears to be the Ontario Minor Hockey Association. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with the redirect and appropriate comments left on talk pages. Flibirigit (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2017 (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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kilograph[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable subject. After I removed the founder's biography and sourcing to articles that were not about them at all, it is entirely sourced to the company itself. You'll find a fair amount of Google News hits, but those aren't coverage of the company: they are photo credits for architectural renderings. In addition, this is a commissioned work that is designed to promote the subject. After all the spam and misrepresentation was removed, there is nothing left for an article. This should be deleted for failing the general guideline in WP:N and also for failing WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability of companies is based on what multiple independent and reliables sources reported and there's none for this article and search barely returns the same. Non notable studio that doesn't meet basic WP:GNG nor WP:CORP. Earlier revision was blatant promotion and written by paid editor whose only edits are on another paid article apart from this. Ammarpad (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2017 (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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Short (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Played and managed for only six seasons in low-level minor leagues. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have third party sources, enough to pass WP:GNG. Granted being just a minor league player is not a pass, but passing GNG is enough.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG with multiple third-party sources. Also, the Austin Senators and the Texas League are not "low level". The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. In 1907 alone, the Texas League was classified as a "C" level minor league, below five "A" level leagues and seven "B" level leagues. As far as the sources, one is a PDF of a game he played in pulled from a blog-type site, while three others are books which merely mention his name, not proving ample coverage of his life and career. The Sporting News article doesn't even mention him. Penale52 (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out the number of "A" and "B" Leagues above the Texas League is irrelevant as all were on equal footing (at least compared to others at the same level.) So there were two steps above it, not 12. I'm not saying you were suggesting otherwise, but I want to make this clear to anyone reading this who may not be as knowledgeable about the levels. Nonetheless, it's not high level, so it comes down to GNG, which I'm undecided about for now. Smartyllama (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just curious, Paulmcdonald and The Master which sources supposedly help this player meet GNG? The ones in the article? Those passively mention his name and others are about a blowout minor league game. I haven't found a single source that describes him significantly which is what we actually look for when we measure a subject against GNG. I urge you both to read the sources and reconsider your stances. By the way, the teams are in fact "low-level", as in they are minor league ball clubs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem in assuming good faith with the off-line sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of coverage to fulfill GNG requirements and participating in one of history's most lopsided games, as well as a stolen base record, confer notability. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2017 (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 clear; the threshold of encyclopedic notability is not met in this case. bd2412 T 20:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Reneau[edit]

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

Prod removed without fixing the underlying issue: fails WP:ANYBIO due to lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Subscriber and view counts way below the level expected of notable YouTubers. AfC draft recently rejected due to lack of notability. Rentier (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with the redirect page YesReneau: from a quick scan of List of YouTubers, it appears each of them has footnotes explaining their cultural significance outside of YouTube, whereas Google searches for both these terms don't throw out anything similar. A clear case of WP:NBIO or, at the very least, WP:TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete there is some coverage out there, but it is not particularly substantial.198.58.171.47 (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no content, etc. Seems to be a fan article. Agricola44 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we cannot have articles sourced only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given potential COI, below I will address and refute central points of

Subscriber and view counts way below the level expected
Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources

without bias.

[[File:Screenshot_from_2017-12-05t07-17-47Z_of_Gregorian_Calendar.jpg |thumb |left]]

https://pastebin.com/krYP773y

Above link to CSV file compiling view and subscriber levels of 277 channels found in List_of_YouTubers article, illustrates that YesReneau's channel rises above the 25th percentile in subscriber level and 17th percentile in view count, which suggest that it meets level expected.

If there exists an authoritative source as to what exactly is level of view and subscriber counts expected from YouTube content creator to have their presence on Wikipedia other than data from contemporaneous articles, please refer to it before stating it hasn't been met. How else could we gauge expected level if not by contrasting with parallels?

Moreover it is advised to bring the article back to state from before being stubbed: Special:PermanentLink/803897636 where secondary sources to support multitude of primary ones were USA Todays and The Tabs published articles originated by journalists S. Behrens and C. Verrastro respectively.

While quest of editors that stubbed the article, which seem to be keeping Wikipedia in constraints of what constituted as encyclopedia historically, has been serving platform well in many cases, here it is not well grounded nor in bounds of fine line that distinguishes between constructive moderation and overextending behaviour.

Following search result returns over 5000 biographies of living people hosted on Wikipedia linking to USA Today, most of which are using it as secondary source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=incategory%3A+Living_people+linksto%3A%22USA_Today%22&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=dt1ie0hybbm6knhd7xza4pr0u

The Tab while less popular as source, caters for two YouTube personalities' biographies on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=incategory%3A+English_YouTubers+linksto%3A%22The_Tab%22&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=bqus41uv91n8pkz38y6pjo0f8

Above results suggest that publishers in question were historically considered reliable enough (Even though specific articles used in the Special:PermanentLink/803897636 may relatively weakly classify as reliable secondary source as per WP:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, they still do. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) to support vast supply of primary sources.

ΩL8 ManeValidus (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for further discussion of the sources mentioned by L8 ManeValidus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's surprising that this discussion was relisted, given that the long "keep" argument above is entirely specious. Appears as if the moderator did not actually check it. Briefly, the commentator is arguing keep on the well-known GHITS fallacy and that the sources in a previous version demonstrate notability. They don't and that is because they were all either YouTube videos or webpages. There wasn't, and still isn't any RS. To further the argument, this panelist offers more websites and WP searches, i.e. Wikipedia sourcing itself. As I said, some simple checking, which took me just a few minutes, shows the entire argument to be specious. Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Agricola44: It's a closing administrator's (note: administrator not moderator) job to assess the consensus of the participants in an AfD, not to impose their own judgement on the available sources. The initial delete !votes cited a lack of sources. L8 ManeValidus explicitly contradicted this and listed several sources. Nobody responded to this significant new claim, hence my decision to relist. The onus is now on those in favour of deleting to assess and respond to these sources. This is a discussion, after all, not a poll. – Joe (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true, then closing admins are just vote counters and we should just have a bot take over that job to save time. It is the closing admin's job to assess the evidence in each commentator's argument. For example, "keep per GNG", the most heinously abused argument in all of AfD, is not equal to some cogent, evidence-filled argument to delete. The "keep" argument I commented on is specious, which minimal checking has confirmed. (There is no onus. The job is already done.) Agricola44 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit too soon. She's clearly notable and has a large following on YouTube, but Wikipedia requires substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Her College paper (Harvard) did a festure on her and an interview and USAToday ised her expertise along with two other YouTube successes for a how-tp type piece, but it's not enough according to community agreed upon standards at Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2017 (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 keep – nomination withdrawn. – Joe (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trondheim Region[edit]

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

This region doesn't seem to be mentioned in the single source given, and I have found no official figures for it. Googling "[anywhere] region" will always find stuff (eg "Reims Region"), likewise "downtown Trondheim", "central Trondheim". They are just weakly defined notions. Any description of the area put here will duplicate the counties in which it resides ("Sør-Trøndelag" and "Nord-Trøndelag), ie Wikipedia:Content Forking, so to be avoided. Batternut (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

Snow keep. Recognized national subdivision, and as mentioned when deprodding less than 48 hours ago, the region "has a lot of presence in sources" and easily meets WP:GNG. All it takes is a search on the Norwegian Trondheimsregionen. Prior to storbymeldingen that made Trondheimsregionen a metropolitan region, the term was used solely in the sense of an inter-municipal collaboration. I am going to deprod Greater Bergen Region, similar the search term there is Bergensregionen. Sam Sailor 03:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sam Sailor: please consider addressing the concerns raised when de-proding, per WP:DEPROD. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per the above comment. I found a science direct article on the region, which should be enough to establish notably. Cocohead781 (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (as nominator). At last, some sources have been provided (not done when it was de-proded). Batternut (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2017 (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 clear. bd2412 T 14:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refuge Recovery Centers[edit]

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

This poorly sourced AfC approval appears to fall quite short of the requirements for WP:CORP. A preliminary WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You seemed to miss the comment I posted with this article, This article barely passed the AFC standards. I did extensive research on this article and tried my best to find notability. I found success as there were countless pages of non-local news and articles about the Center. If it was not for the countless pages of sources, I would have declined the article. This article just needs to gain additional sources and it exceed expectations for WP:CORP. According to the AFC rules, you should not decline an article based on little sourcing. If the creator truly cared about this article, this can be improved with expansion and additional citations. AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources online other than those already listed in the article, which are very poor. Most of the information appears to come from the company website. Brad v 03:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Passing mention in a publication of dubious reliability, and two puff piece interviews in "The Fix" (no, not the Chris Cillizza blog, but apparently a hip-feeling Web magazine). Umm... there's this in what appears to be the yelp of rehab centers, and then there's plenty of patently unreliable web coverage like the actual yelp page. If there are really "countless pages of non-local news and articles" then now would be a good time to link to them. GMG ^talk 16:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing AFC is not immunity for articles. The sources are mix of mere mention and selfpublish, no sufficient independent sources to meet WP:CORP –Ammarpad (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my "Keep" Statement. I am neutral now. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I made some edits, and added a couple more sources, and the Lion's Roar magazine article is both in-depth and national in scope. This place is so relevant, Batman goes there.Vampire Squid (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. remains basically trivial. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 13 December 2017 (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. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Michael Smith[edit]

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

Paid-for article on a non-notable individual. The two references that aren't misused primary or nonindependent sources (i.e. [36] and [37]) only mention Smith in passing, and searches turn up no significant coverage. – Joe (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, created in return for undisclosed payments, in violation of terms of use. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: It's disclosed on the talk page, so I don't think there's a violation of the ToU in this case. Still spammy, though. – Joe (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aspiring Hollywood person who apparently spent his advertising bucks here WP:TOOSOON ☆ Bri (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a commissioned promotional work that is excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. Disclosure doesn't matter if it violates the local policy on promotion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable advetising. TOOSOON. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's some passing mentions, but it's pretty much passing mention all the way down. GMG ^talk 16:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refspamming. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2017 (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.