< 9 December	11 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Udini Square[edit]

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

A non-descript suburban mall. Other than routine coverage, nothing to show this particular mall is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate references from credible, third-party sources, indicative of its notability. This is one of the newer shopping malls on Penang Island, by the way, which is also strategically located at a growing suburban area. Vnonymous (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my experience recently has been that most large malls are found notable, even if the only references are arguably WP:MILL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - In the absence of a notability guideline on shopping malls, appears to satisfy general notability marginally, and shopping malls probably usually do. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, malls commonly have notability as many people will go there everyday. angys (Talk Talk) 08:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unjustified nomination for deletion, as the subject is notable in Penang. As pointed out, the subject's notability is backed by a number of third-party sources. If it fulfills general notability, why the subject is nominated for deletion is beyond me. Semi-auto (talk) 23:17, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gee-O-Jatta[edit]

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

PROD removed by with poor explaination why he opposed the deletion of the article. Still unreferenced and searches turn up to unreliable sources like YouTube, Facebook etc. Fails GNG and NFILM. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 23:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 23:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 23:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 23:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, or WP:FILM, as noted, per nom. Ventric (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 17 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) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All-Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group[edit]

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

Non-notable informal group of members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom (see All-party parliamentary group). Fails WP:GNG.

There are currently 565 All Party Groups (APGs) in Westminster, and most MPs are members of at least half-a-dozen. These groups rarely get any coverage in mainstream media.

In this case, there is only one ref which could make a non-risible claim to GNG's requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject": a deleted blog entry on ComputerWorld.co.uk, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20120330152240/https://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/03/urgent-help-defend-a-balanced/index.htm

I doubt that a blog on ComputerWorld is a reliable source, and since this blog entry consists almost entirely of block-quotes from the APG's own website, it is hard to describe it as "significant coverage". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also deletion discussion of Category:Members of the All Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group at WP:CFD 2017 December 10. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it could fail CFD then there is no question that it also fails the criteria for notability. Also agree that there is not enough mainstream coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nom and above. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CFD. Removal of trivial grouping of notable people in a non-notable circumstance. Ventric (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN political talking shop. No official government designation that I know of. Refs don't support gng. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 16 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Boyd Casey[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:NOTINHERITED. Being related to generals and having an installation named in your honor isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Casey's death was well covered, and there are plenty of results about it in reliable newspapers on newspapers.com[1][2]. His activities in WWII are briefly covered in articles about his father from that period. As such, the article seems to me to well satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR. In order to satisfy WP:NPOV/WP:N, multiple reliable sources are necessary. I feel that period newspapers can satisfy WP:RS and give an article enough to satisfy our policies and guidelines. Further, looking at google books searches, I find some coverage, largely related to the camp and certainly enough to satisfy V/RS/OR concerns. I considered a !vote to redirect to Camp Casey, but the coverage is actually related to three things, the camp, the general, and the Hugh Boyd Casey memorial award which, I think, is still awarded to an NCO every year in the 7th infantry regiment and was, I think, founded as a part of the will of Hugh's mother. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article using a nine newspapers.com articles. Four of the articles are from during his life, one of which is about his father the rest are about him. Two are obits. One is about the naming of the camp. And two are references to the memorial award (there are more references to the memorial award, each one giving slightly different accounts of the award, so I added two so the reader can get a sense of the variation in the wordings around the award). Links to the newspaper clippings are in the article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The guy was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and had a base named in his honor. If he'd been awarded the medal twice he'd meet WP:SOLDIER and we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, there are fewer bases named after soldiers than there are awardees of the DSC, so it seems reasonable to count the naming as a higher honor than the medal, thus keep.192.160.216.52 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per recent improvements. Having a military installation (or ship) and award named after you is a sign of notability. Notability is not inherited, indeed, however coverage may be bestowed on the relatives of more notable individuals (which is partially the case here) and soldiers may be notable also when not presumed notable per SOLDIER.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a major military base named after him takes him over the the line. I admit that the criteria for this sort of honour is maddeningly random. Has attracted significant coverage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major cultural and military relevance in the USA. Ventric (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and after improvements is notable has a military base named after him.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 17 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) 16:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trinakrian trail[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is a hoax or just a wholly non-notable event. The page is wholly unreferenced. Zero hits for "Percorso Trinakria" on JSTOR, Scholar, Gbooks and Gnews. I see no evidence whatsoever of notability, and no hope of finding sources that would demonstrate it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trinacria is simply an old name for Sicily. I did some searches in Italian and there's a half-triathlon with roughly the same name, which suggests it's not an outright hoax. However, I couldn't find anything that confirmed the substance of the article or its notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every reason to believe the article is entirely fictional in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Possible hoax. Given the paucity of sources GNG not established.Icewhiz (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on speculation. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This meets the standard for folklore in some other form. Perhaps as a WP:ESSAY. Ventric (talk) 20:09, 16 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlandic sound shift[edit]

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

No mention of this term, anywhere. WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. The source mentioned (Jansen, G, "Het Nederlands") mentions no such thing [3] Kleuske (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've certainly never heard of anything like this. Also, the term "sound shift" is normally reserved for a systematic change of phonemes, whereas this is just a collection of some unrelated sound changes that happened to occur in a certain language area. It doesn't seem at all notable to me, definitely needs sources to establish notability. Rua (mew) 21:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source has been added referencing all three terms used here for the title. The original German in that particular source, makes use of "Lautverschiebung" which I've translated with "sound shift", another option would have been "constant shift" but the examples listed (see Janssen) include more than just consonants. It is however, a systematic shift. The concept itself is present in most modern linguistic works which deal with Old Dutch, as completion of these sound changes can be taken as the start of Old Dutch proper, following its Frankish proto-stage. Also, as mentioned in the article, it is used to differentiate between Old Saxon/Old High German and Old Dutch, in addition to the much large, intricate and studied HGCS. I've created the article as a start, I'm planning to expand on it more. I'd like to note though, that I've got strong personal indications that this is WP:POINT-nomination by Kleuske, who I sadly had to report for making a personal attack a mere hour ago. I would like to add more source material now, but am quite tired at the moment and would like to make this a promise for now. Cheers, AKAKIOS (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of those sources (Janssen, the only one readily available) does not mention the term AT ALL. ""Niederlandische Lautverschiebung" does not deliver any results either (Scholar, google, DuckDuckGo, etc). The term is mentioned nowhere in either google scholar or elsewhere. You got two weeks (generally) to come up with something better than just claiming it exists and delivering and casting aspersions. Kleuske (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a moderator Kleuske. Just another Wikipedian, and a Wikipedian with a history of personal conflict and disrespectful behavior on the Dutch Wikipedia for that matter. I'd ask you to refrain from barking orders to fellow contributors, let alone formulating ultimatums to volunteers. Janssen is used for its clear formulation of the changes (page 58 onwards) and online availability, a quick reference for the table presented. A source mentioning the terms, has already been added. Luckily it was still on my desk. More sources will follow, as soon as possible, when I have the time. Regardless of your personal deadline and shouting. Cheers, AKAKIOS (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to AKAKIOS's userspace, so that he can properly source the article. Can you guys not argue whenever you encounter each other? Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AKAKIOS has been banned, so there's no other option than deleting the article. Unless someone is interested in improving its sourcing? Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AKAKIOS is actually blocked rather than banned, and could fairly easily be unblocked. But if the article is deleted before that happens, they could request a restoration into their userspace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Right, there's a difference. If that happens, I'll support the restoration. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question — The article nl:Klankverschuivingen in de Germaanse talen (Sound shifts in the Germanic languages), which is unsourced, and the article nl:Ingveoonse talen (Ingvaeonic languages) describe several sound shifts for the Ingvaeonic languages Dutch, English, and Frisian. Generally speaking the historical sound shifts of these languages seem appropriate topics for Wikipedia. While searching the web, I found some publications discussing these shifts. In which English Wikipedia articles, already existing or not, could these be best described? – Editør (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Editør: That (probably) refers to Grimm's law. Other candidates include Holtzmann's law, Sievers' law and Verner's law, but I'm not going to figure that out right now. I'm not contesting the phenomenon of 'sound shift' exists, I contest there's such a thing as the "Netherlandic sound shift", since it's not mentioned by any sources. Kleuske (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps the title of this article was ill-chosen, but its content doesn't seem to be complete nonsense. The sound shifts in the laws you mention are all about the Proto-Germanic language. What I understand is that the Ingvaeonic languages developed from this language and consequentially their sound shifts would be different ones that occurred later in time. – Editør (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't complete nonsense and one of the sources ("Het Nederlands vroeger en nu", Janssen, G.) does mention the shifts specified. It's just that the term does not exist. If you can come up with a title that a) can actually be properly sourced and b) describes this set of shifts, feel free to rename the article and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. I doubt you can, though. Kleuske (talk) 23:06, 17 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) 03:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young Medics International Conference[edit]

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

no evidence at all of notability for this conference for medical students and medical residents (postgraduates), . Their web site makes it clear that its essentially a student conference. or mdeical residents nility. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There isn't coverage of this conference by any independent sources within the article and I couldn't locate any on a brief search. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:COVERAGE. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:53, 3 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) 20:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this is a notable organizatin/conference. Maybe someone would want to merge some of the content into Armenian Medical Association, but I don't personally think it's worthwhile. TimBuck2 (talk) 14:45, 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 merge to Noh Matta Wat!. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Diegos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No out-of-universe notability asserted, untouched since 2006 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 1 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) 07:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Noh Matta Wat! tv series. Trim the description if necessary. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:10, 9 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) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: This article didn't cited any sources for identifying a WP:INDEPENDENT standpoint since 2006, some of the materials are related to the TV series Noh Matta Wat!, which may need to redirect these description. SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Noh Matta Wat!. This article says that in Season One of this series, we are introduced to the Diego family, and information about them could go there. Vorbee (talk) 15:54, 16 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTV Pakistan[edit]

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

After all my checks there is nothing for this WEBTV in RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:11, 26 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) 07:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:44, 3 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) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing worth for saving. Delete it per WP:TNT. Störm (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 17 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Model Open Government Partnership[edit]

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

I failed to find coverage about this topic. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:48, 26 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) 07:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet the basic inclusion standard. I cannot find any reliable sources discussing it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 7 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) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 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. Notability has been established. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Cheng[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per talk page OppieSG (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This page was nominated for deletion before and was kept partly due to a now banned sockpuppet. Once the puff has been trimmed, the subject is non-notable except as a Facebook commentator who makes controversial remarks in Singapore. Few reliable sources. OppieSG (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC) (extra !vote struck Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Subject’s last notable position with Elite Models was over 10 years ago. None of his companies thereafter are notable. He was an appointed legislator for only 21 months. Not a real politician OppieSG (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close discussion until other issues are fixed - Like most pages related to Singapore politics and politicians, this one is an absolute mess, full of COI editors, IP editors who have only edited this page and the page itself was seemingly created with the sole purpose of self-promotion. However, since the article also contains some unsavory material about the subject matter, and given the widespread nature of editing paid by the ruling party of Singapore or its fanatical supporters and detractors, the nature of this nomination and some of those calling for it is somewhat dubious. Though I would most likely support deletion, with the current circumstances it seems unlikely to be able to have a balanced discussion based on WP policy without POV-pushing. I suggest closing the discussion, sorting this out with a lot of blocks (preferably extended far beyond this page, but that seems unlikely to happen) then revisiting this discussion once that's concluded. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In local context, the subject is notable only for controversial comments that die out quickly, from the sources, he doesn't get any international coverage.

On a side note, let's be realistic, there are fanatical supporters and detractors come in both flavors. Its not even a new thing, i.e. personally I saw cases of people canvassing outsiders to come into wikipedia to help in his/her editwar [[4]][[5]]. But let that distract from keeping articles neutral. Our role is not to write what is "right"/"truth", which may be subjective, but what can be "reliably sourced". Zhanzhao (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Per talk page" is not a reason for deletion. Please state a reason here. -- Bistropha (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently there is some misunderstanding about the Wikipedia concept of "notability". It does not refer to the importance of the person or his companies or career. Instead, it refers to how much coverage the person has received from independent publications considered "reliable sources" (which roughly means: journalistic publications or commercially produced books). The references to the article show numerous journalistic publications that have reported on Mr. Cheng, so that is sufficient to meet Wikipedia's "notability" criterion. For further information on the criterion, please see WP:PERSON. -- Bistropha (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also note that former members of a national or regional legislature qualify as notable, according to WP:POLITICIAN. -- Bistropha (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe a partial term as an appointed member really gets over the POLITICIAN hump; even that argument is marginal at best. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy stated at WP:POLITICIAN does not exclude appointed members or short-term members. It even includes members who were elected but who never served. Note also that the British House of Lords and the Canadian Senate are appointive bodies. -- Bistropha (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete there are few high quality refs with substantial discussion about him. There are lots of passing mentions, sure. Some of the lack is due to the impoverished state of the press in Singapore but some is due to the fact that he is a medium sized fish in the small pond of Singapore. If this article had a normal history I probably wouldn't vote at all. I am involved in this article because it has been subject to relentless promotional pressure for around ten years (see this piece of promotional garbage from 2007, and see this from Feb 2016), and I would be happy to see it gone. If the subject were very notable it would be worth the effort; since notability is marginal, it is not. Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be disagreeing with your good-faith arguments, but the past poor quality of the article does not imply that the person fails to meet the Notability criterion. Does anyone have another reason to delete the article (based on Wikipedia criteria)? -- Bistropha (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent what I wrote here again. I did address N, and did so clearly. I will not reply further to you. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I've misrepresented your statements here, please accept my apology; I hope everyone can Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Bistropha (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did; there is no "if" about it and AGF has nothing to do with it. Bad behavior is bad behavior Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable in Singapore. Suggest raising the level of protection to WP:BLUELOCK permanently since a lot of those edit warring stuff by representatives of the subject through sock puppets can be avoided. Editors shouldn't be wasting unnecessary time dealing with COI users whose objective is at WP:Stonewalling and WP:PROMO. Jane Dawson (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is he notable for? As a ‘politician’ he was an NMP with no voting power. It isn’t the same as the Canadian Senate or UK Lords. He never said anything of significance in office. His term was cut short. As a businessman, none of his companies are notable. If you do a google search now, the vast majority of news is about his Facebook comments about Singapore issues. That may make him notable in Singapore, but definitely not according to Wikipedia notability standards. OppieSG (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedia needs is significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And the sources should be national or at least regional in scope. Here we have a case were "national scope" of a source is a small island of 5 million people, the size of a large city in any other country. I'd say it's a loophole in the case of city-state countries, but the article does meet "the letter of the law" if not the spirit. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bluelock suggestion sounds good. The level of contentiousness over this article is puzzling to an outsider. --Bistropha (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a couple of reasons. While one could argue that he's notable "nationally" in Singapore, it's also the same as being only locally notable in a city. If it were any city in the United States, he definitely wouldn't merit an article here. Secondly, I am in communication with the subject on OTRS. He has been disturbed about the article's history of "constant edit wars, vandalism and anonymous IP edits". He prefers that Wikipedia not have an article about him. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCD is not a valid policy for deletion. He is often quoted by the state media, example http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/social-media-abuzz-over-walkover and http://m.todayonline.com/singapore/halimah-may-be-strongest-ep-candidate-say-analysts If state media gives him that much attention, it means he is notable. Also, constant edit wars can be easily prevented using proper locks, there is no reason to delete the article because of that. Jane Dawson (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of non-notable people by Wiki standards that are quoted in state media frequently. Gillian Koh for example. They are even put on state media TV. The issue here is he isn’t notable for any Wikipedia recognised category. Being a political commentator and analyst often quoted in the poor press environment of Singapore is definitely not a reason. OppieSG (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is not just a political commentator, but also a former politician per WP:POLITICIAN. There are quite a number of less notable NMPs with their BLPs here such as Viswa Sadasivan whom I have never even heard of until today. We shouldn't remove a BLP just because the subject is unpopular or highly controversial figure. Also, the same policy should be applied fairly and consistently to every BLP. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NMPs are not politicians. In fact the scheme was set up to allow non-professional politicians to have a voice in Parliament. They thus have no voting power. Almost all of the entries on them should be deleted (including Viswa Sadasivan’s) unless before they were appointed, they were already notable. Some were Olympic sports people for example. The subject isn’t being proposed for deletion for being controversial. The discussion is whether he is notable. OppieSG (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NMPs are politicians. Even his BLP says he is a (former) politician. Also NMPs do have voting powers. Quote: "In Parliament, NMPs can participate in debates and vote on all issues except amendments to the Constitution, motions relating to public funds, votes of no confidence in the Government, and removing the President from office." Wikipedia's policy should apply. Jane Dawson (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wiki entry “The NMP scheme was a move to provide more opportunities for Singaporeans to participate in politics. It was a "privilege" extended to Singaporeans who could make valuable contributions to public policy but for good reasons did not desire to enter politics and look after constituencies.”. They are not politicians. Also, those four things NMPs can’t vote on are the most important functions of a legislature OppieSG (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my rationale, "state media" in this case amounts to local coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
National coverage, to be exact. Jane Dawson (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's local coverage, to be exact. It's local coverage in a city that also happens to be a country. Local coverage in any other city the size of Singapore wouldn't merit an article here. For cases like this, international coverage would be most appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator, you should have the vast knowledge and experience to convince everyone here by pointing to the specific Wikipedia policy that states so to support your argument unambuiguosly instead of repeating your point. I am willing to vote otherwise if you are able to do so. I am done arguing with you. Jane Dawson (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:NLI is a failed proposal. The coverage is unarguably confined to a single city. That's local coverage by any definition. The fact that the city happens to be a state is an irrelevant semantic argument. I would argue that the geographic and population-based scope of coverage matter more than the political boundary of the coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page has significant violations of our policies on biographies of living people. It should be deleted for that reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to admit that the whole NMP scheme seems a bit odd to me, but the NMP's sit as members of parliament specifically to give added and broader voice in public policy consideration. This is enough to give them notability. I would also back articles on every member of the central legislative bodies of every ancient Greek city state if we had the sources to verify them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some NMPs are notable and some are not. There should be no blanket policy. The question has to be given that they are not proper MPs or politicians, what ELSE is an individual notable for? So we have several in Singapore who are CEOs of billion dollar companies, leading academics, a former Attorney-General etc. Cheng does not meet any of these criteria. OppieSG (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are members of parliament and Cheng has received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:NPOL. We have articles about mayors of large cities, so I don't see the problem with having an article about an NMP. There is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. It is sad that the article has been plagued with so much COI editing. I suggest permanent extended confirmed protection. The comment by Anachronist indicates that the subject is aware of this article and has requested a delete. However, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE shouldn't be honoured here because the subject is not a low profile individual, but a high profile individual whose views have been quoted in newspapers regularly. Wikipedia is one of the few neutral sources of information available and deleting this does a disservice to our readers. It is funny that there was no request to delete it when this article contained a bunch of WP:PROMO content.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was. This article survived a deletion discussion 10 years ago due to the efforts of a sockpuppet. It should have been deleted then. OppieSG (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I see you have added back and made substantial changes to the article that other users have made in the last few days, without discussing it. This is as good as edit warring. Please refrain whilst this discussion is going on. OppieSG (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You talk exactly like the sockpuppets Aricialam and Historicalchild. Now that the article is not going your way, you are trying to get it deleted eh? And stop your bogus accusations of edit warring.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not accuse people of sockpuppetry just because you disagree with them. Thanks OppieSG (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop accusing people of disruptive editing and edit warring. Nice case of pot calling the kettle black.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NMP's sit as members of parliament specifically to give added and broader voice in public policy consideration and appear to have limited voting rights. The wikipedia page suggests that several NMPs have be successful in passing legislation. One of the goals of WP:NPOL is to build a record of every legislator, which includes non-voting members (similar to the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico in the US House). --Enos733 (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not very familiar with Singapore's system of government, but if NMEPs are basically members of parliament but appointed rather than elected, then that means that they would meet WP:NPOL as "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Although it appears that the subject has requested deletion of his article, WP:BLP states that such requests could only be given to low-profile individuals who probably wouldn't meet notability guidelines anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entry reads like a nasty hack job on subject. Detailed writeups about two controversies and thin on everything else. If subject is notable mostly for a price-fixing incident 6 years ago and some stupid facebook comment he wasn’t even arrested for, this entry should be deleted. Not all legislators meet WP:NPOL automatically. 195.68.63.82 (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL as he is a Nominated Member of Parliament.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In his speech to Parliament in the second reading of the Bill, when then Prime Minister of Singapore Goh Chok Tong introduced the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme, he makes it crystal clear that NMPs are not Politicians. In fact, the scheme was introduced precisely to allow NON-POLITICIANS a voice in Parliament.

Take some time to read this:

http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00061822-ZZ

Some important quotes:

“Parliament does not have to, but it is a special privilege it can extend to those Singaporeans who can contribute, but who for good reasons, have no desire to go into politics (emphasis mine) or to look after a constituency, to enter Parliament.”

Politicians who have no desire to go into politics is a contradiction in terms.

“For example, many foreign companies, in particular multi-national companies, do not allow their staff to take part in elections because they want to retain a neutral position in their host country. Oil companies practise this policy. For the same reason, some local companies do not allow their staff to stand for elections. The Straits Times, for example, does not allow their journalists to do so.”

There are of course NMPs who were notable at their point of appointment. Examples would be Olivia Lum, founder and CEO of Hyflux, Loo Choon Yong, founder and CEO of Raffles Hospital. Or Joscelyn Yeo, who was appointed same time as Cheng, who was Singapore’s most be-medalled athelete. Some like Walter Woon, were marginally notable when appointed (being an outspoken law academic), became notable as NMP (for being the first non-Government parliamentarian to get a bill introduced and passed in Parliament) and then became even more notable after he stepped down as NMP (being appointed Ambassador to Germany, then Solictor-General and then Attorney-General of Singapore). Most however were ordinary Singaporeans who were just given a voice (academics, unionists, environmental actvists, artists) who would fail Wikipedia’s notability guidelines before, during and after appointment, if we do not automatically consider them notable as WP:NPOL. And we shouldn’t for the reasons explained above. OppieSG (talk) 10:03, 17 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. Notability not established by those asking for retention. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collegemarching.com[edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are brief mentions of site. reddogsix (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references (other than the primary source [6] ) are trivial or image-credits at best. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Aside from references in multiple mainstream news sources, two of the sources are about ideas specific to marchingband. Subuey (talk) 01:22, 9 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) 20:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources do not cover the website itself, they simply cite the website. The website itself does not appear to have garnered the attention necessary for web content to be considered notable. It may be that the website will become notable later. Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 18 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stars in the Sky[edit]

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

Website does not exist it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The website has moved to [7], they are a non notable introduction agency. Szzuk (talk) 21:59, 16 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) 00:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindaun Fort[edit]

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

Non-notable ruin which might be a palace or a fort. Material is covered also at Hindaun, so WP:FORK applies. Article is not only uncited, but by my search, it's unciteable as there are basically no suitable sources to demonstrate notability. Redirect and PROD were removed by author, so here we are. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Clearly an historic building which would undoubtedly be heritage listed if it was in a Western country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are actually multiple references to Hindaun Fort in a number of books including Administrative System of the Rajputs (1979), The Second Anglo-Maratha War, 1802-1805: a Study in Military History (1990), New History of the Marathas: Sunset over Maharashtra (1772-1848) (1968), and Rajasthan [district Gazetteers].: Sawai Madhopur (1981) to name a few. Dan arndt (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, many thanks for the books, do you have actual quotations, page numbers or URLs to provide verifiable citations? Simply repeating "GEOFEAT" does not help much as the policy rightly says

Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability

Therefore, what we require here (as in many places) is actual evidence of notability. The district Gazetteer is certainly a "directory" in the terms of WP:GEOFEAT and is therefore not evidence of notability. The other books could possibly be suitable but we require evidence of substantial entries (per WP:GNG as well as WP:GEOFEAT) to do this correctly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Per Necro and Dan. --Molestash (talk) 13:18, 16 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knife Capital[edit]

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

Not a notable company. Sources include 1 dead source which I can't view and the rest look like simple announcements on a website that seem questionable at best.

Google shows the same two stories over and over on those "repost every announcement ever" sites which is that they invested in some swedish company, and that they launched an accelerator.

Very little in depth discussion outside of these reposted announcements. TKK! bark with me! 18:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, CORPDEPTH, tone borders on advertising. Doesn't seem like it can be saved. South Nashua (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:59, 15 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. Nomination withdrawn, and the other two initial delete comments have also been withdrawn. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germaine Guex[edit]

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

~~Clearly does not pass WP:GNG. Would normally be CSD material, except one editor repeatedly contests it (which, to be fair, is allowed). —cnzx (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator The foreign language references, I think, establish sufficient notability. —cnzx (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete per WP:A7. The article has no claim of significance regarding the subject.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete -- Let 'em put it in the French wikipedia. Not of shred of interest for English speakers. If you cannot explain why the subject might interest me, then let it be gone. Rhadow (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added information about her notability. A leading Swiss psychanalyst, covered in dedicated articles in the International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis ([8]) and in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland ([9]). Clearly meets WP:GNG based on the references in the article. Sandstein 18:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have struck my !vote above, as the article now has a valid claim of significance (e.g. "Guex established a pioneering medical-pedagogical service in Monthey ...") North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the contributions to the major encyclopedias in the field are enough to meet WP:PROF . DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic subject of significant importance. Documented in historicially notable sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:18, 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 merge to Major Emmerdale storylines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who Killed Emma Barton?[edit]

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

Storyline not notable enough to warrant own article. There is already the Major Emmerdale storylines article to house this, which is has been doing, amongst many other storylines which could be argued are more notable in their respective period. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Major Emmerdale storylines per nom. Poorly sourced article with nothing to suggest notability. It's hardly of the same profile as Who Shot Phil? or Who Shot JR?. This is Paul (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Can't think what to add really, one of many plots. Szzuk (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This does indeed seem the best option. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:09, 15 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) 00:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional landship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is nothing but a thinly disguised "List of fictional landships" spinoff article. Most of the article is an unsourced WP:OR list of different fictional landships. When that is removed the article becomes pointless, and actual referenced info can easily be added to the article Landship. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: By reading the past discussions I can see why the content was originally split from the Landship article. However, most (all? I could not find anything that is related with the topic from the two given references) of the content here is unsourced original research. Perhaps WP:TNT is the solution here... Deletion is not cleanup, but any cleanup would make the article pointless as stated above. Ceosad (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no such article like this anywhere else on Wikipedia: Fictional cat (redirects to a list page not about fictional cats as a topic), Fictional board game, nothing. There is no indication that the concept of a fictional landship differs significantly from real landships or why these elements are considered landships. If this is a list, then the correct name is List of fictional landships. And, as noted above, is largely unsourced and original research. 165.91.13.28 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to landship, trimming appropriately, per WP:ATD-M. Neither the nom nor any above participant explains why this is unworkable (indeed, the nom advocates it!) and it is the policy-preferred option. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 16 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. Promotional article without notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Saltzman[edit]

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

promotional article for minor businessman, written by undeclared paid editor ,based entirely on his press releases published in the usual places . DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Babymiss fortune 21:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Babymiss fortune 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for people to promote their businesses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otgonjargal Davaasuren[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Most of the coverage, as it is, out there is due to her participation in a single film (Warrior Princess - [10]) and her name being repeated in various credits/catalogs. References in article seem impressive, however they boil down to 4: [11] [12] [13] [14] which is far from enough for an actor (and I'm unsure of the RSness of some of them) - the rest are Youtube recordings of performances, and credit lists / reviews of the film mentioned previously where she is briefly mentioned. Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 15 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OPL 281[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability. Is listed as a company but it appears to simply be an area (or "asset") where oil and gas exploration takes place. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per HighKing -- Rhadow (talk) 16:37, 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) 16:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPI Solutions[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability - fails GNG, references are all company announcements, fails WP:ORGIND. Entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic company promotion, nothing different. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP–Ammarpad (talk) 12:49, 16 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L'Espace (concept store)[edit]

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

Delete Fails GNG, some references are 404 but the remaining are unconvincing - fashion blog from a self-described "influencer" or interviews. Nothing that meets the criteria for establishing notability, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 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. Promotional without signs of notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terragon Group[edit]

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

Delete Entirely promotional fails WP:SPIP, references are company announcements and PR, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 06:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 06:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 06:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 06:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas typical spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:19, 16 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StateCraft Inc[edit]

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

Delete Fails GNG, no indications of notability. References are a mix of company announcements, company produced "case studies" or quotations from company personnel or associated people, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 06:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 06:16, 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maliakal[edit]

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

Would've turned into a surname SIA, but no notable person with this surname exists. Fails WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom, nothing to make an SIA with. While it exists, as per WP:NOTDIC, no need for the uncited article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 9 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) 12:53, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Maitland Carruthers[edit]

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

A person who went to Newington College and then became a hospital administrator. No achievements disclosed. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Director General of Health for Tasmania. Castlemate (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite sufficient alone here to support WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I went to the first 15 hits there. There is one short article about his death, two others was him giving a quote about someone dying/hospital incident, the other 12 were all lists of people enlisting in the war/receiving something or returning and did not have any description of him, or was his own diary entry published in the newspaper. ADS54 talk 08:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are a wide range of references to the subject here. There are 65 of them in that explicit search result. They are spread over three to four decades in multiple independent reliable sources with editorial overview. I suggest there is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Aoziwe (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Aoziwe's sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the best of Aoziwe's sources are actually already cited (the extensive Examiner obit and then the account of the cremation in the Advocate). The rest aren't great, but combined with these get him over the line in my opinion. Frickeg (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for five reasons: 1 –This one also has entry in Who's Who in Australia which is authoritative reference material used by academics as a resource that identifies Australia's leading individuals, and as a research tool by journalists and historian. It is equivalent of Dictionary of National Biography and all its entries passes WP:ANYBIO #3. Number 2 and 3 –He passes WP:ANYBIO #1 as well as WP:NACADEMIC #2 as a holder of the Officer of the Order of the British Empire, a well known and significant national honor. Number 4, –Passes WP:NACADEMIC #3. He was Fellow of renown academic society during his life. Number 5 –He received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in reliable sources as the sources in the article already show. This is another among the most misthought and careless nominations in the recent –Ammarpad (talk) 13:05, 17 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) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elliston Campbell[edit]

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

A non-notable graduate of Newington College. He was an electrical engineering lecturer, but no research achievements are disclosed, and he was the leader of a state chapter of an engineering society. Other than that he was interested in religion and left his estate to that religion but there is no indication that he is notable as a religious scholar Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! From Babymiss fortune 21:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of people with connections to Newington College has clearly gone way overboard. No sign of notability is present here. On the other hand the comments by Publicschoolboy show a total lack of the acceptable form of discourse on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some non routine reporting on the subject, but not sufficient. Aoziwe (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aoziwe. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything here to support notability. (But can we perhaps delete or at least strike the disruptive nonsense above? It adds nothing and has been added by a SPA.) Frickeg (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:00, 15 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Brown (colliery proprietor)[edit]

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

A rich person who went to Newington College and inherited the family business. No specific business achievements disclosed Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I cannot see how this person is notable based on the article or on what I can readily find. However, this off line material could be very revealing, if some one can access it ? Aoziwe (talk) 08:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though would also be interested to see the material Aoziwe notes. I also note that there is a deliberately misleading citation - the title is given as "Brown, Stephen (1869–1958)" (implying that he has an Australian Dictionary of Biography article), when the actual article linked is one on his brother, which has three lines about this person, and isn't considered notable enough for a joint listing by the ADB. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing I can find here - and as The Drover's Wife says, that citation is pretty much fraudulent. The NLA cuttings might establish notability, but they might also be nothing at all. Frickeg (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please reconsider your comments about Fraud and then consider an apology.
- You wrote an intentionally misleading citation that implied he had an Australian Dictionary of Biography article. The ADB has no record, standalone article or joint article, for "Brown, Stephen (1869–1958)", which you wrote as the title of the citation. This is poor form - and screwing up and doubling-down and demanding apologies just makes it worse. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Senior partner of a major private Australian company ... he inherited the position because it was a private firm. Castlemate (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete colliery proprietor? This guy has no particular achievements outside of the small business related sphere he was in. Classic case of non-notability.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 11:33, 17 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) 00:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lancelot Bavin[edit]

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

A non-notable alumni of Newington College who started a primary school. The school appears to be small and non-notable because it closed down as soon as Bavin retired (Bavin and his wife appear to be only people running the school). There is no specific achievement in pedagogy disclosed. Some later-notable people went to the school when they were in primary school, notability is not inherited Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ARTN--O1lI0 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete O1lI0, what makes the subject notable? From what I can see, there is a gaping big hole before wp:GNG would be met. Schwede 66 09:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founding a school is not a sign of notability, especially when it closes down with ones own ill-health. I am less than convinced we should have an article on the school Bavin founded, but there is no evidence that he himself meets any of our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than WP:EXISTS I cannot find anywhere sufficient to support WP:NEXIST for GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have time right now (and not sure I will have access because this was many decades ago), but it might be worth researching if Bavin passes WP:POLITICIAN. I found a source that he was mayor of the City of Willoughby for "several terms." I imagine with his brother being Premier of New South Wales, he might have also had some clout in the Nationalist Party. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What use is there in saving the buildings without the man who created the school and ran it. If nothing else the Bavin family should be created to save this important contribution to spiritual, political, migration and educational history of NSW. There may not be consensus for this view but I hold that Mayor of a major town centre is notable by itself. Castlemate (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable schoolteacher. Longstanding consensus that suburban mayors aren't inherently notable by that fact alone. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much to establish notability here. He certainly doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN himself, and merely being related to Thomas Bavin doesn't do much either without the coverage to support it. Frickeg (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nothing of note from New Zealand NealeFamily (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tried cleaning up this article, given my interest in mayors, added emphasis on his political career as well as a reference cleanup. That seems to be the limit of what i could usefully add, unless his time as a headmaster was particularly noteworthy (which I'm not sure it is). Not sure as to whether this is now able to pass, but perhaps this could be merged into the Mowbray House School page (should that also pass AfD)? Siegfried Nugent (talk) 23:45, 17 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) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Barraclough[edit]

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

A person from Newington College who was on some company boards Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing goes against our guidelines on reliable sources. Who's Who is especially depricated. It is basically Linkedin when it was a little more restrictive in inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find anything to support notability. Aoziwe (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have thought his roles would be notable (there's also some reference in Google to him being the president of The Smith Family (charity)) but Google turns up nothing useful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost complete lack of sources to go on. Frickeg (talk) 10:57, 15 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Bavin[edit]

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

A priest who attended Newington College. No notable achievements disclosed. He was on some internal YMCA Committees. The article does not disclose what the impact of his work was. The first citation in the lead is misleading, and simply is to an opinion piece he wrote in 1929. Nothing there says that his views provoked debate at the time, let alone that he is remembered after his death Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nomination - nothing to indicate this meets GNG. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Archive searches show that he got WP:SIGCOV in the 1920s as a promoter of mass emigration form Britain to Australia, N.Z. and Canada where these healthy, sturdy young men and women sould help build the Empire, or, at least, the economy. Beware presentism, it can lead you into missing all sorts of things, such as what a big deal the YMCA was back in the day. Bavin wasn't just shooting his mouth off, he was speaking on behalf of a powerful organization. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in Australia, UK and Fiji. Bio could be improved given new information on the web but as everyone who ever attended Newington College is currently faced a vexatious rash of AfDs it might need to wait. Highly notable family in church, state and education that deserves a family article. Castlemate (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had an (albeit short) obituary in The Times, which we usually take to indicate notability. That plus his posts and his OBE I think make him notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over 20 google-book hits that are non-passing. Not everyone who ever graduated from Newington is non-notable.Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite sufficient here to support WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gets over the line as per Aoziwe. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage demonstrated multiple times above. Frickeg (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 16 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) 00:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bagshaw[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, who is on some consultative committees for disability advocacy. Another alumni of Newington College by Castlemate (talk · contribs) Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject looks as though they should be notable, but I cannot find the references to support it. If all the claims in the article can be independently referenced then it would easily pass GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As Aoziwe said, it looks as though they should be notable, though I found just enough references to support keeping it. Would be much easier if the claims in the article were independently referenced. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Essentially in agreement with Aoziwe and The Drover's Wife above. Things said in the article suggest notability but the references often don't support the claims (example - the Australian Story stuff, which would not be enough by themselves but could be significant supporting coverage - but the reference only goes back to 2005). Even on what I've found he's not that far off, though (this is better than most of the in-article references), so very open to convincing with more sources. Frickeg (talk) 10:38, 15 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. Consensus is that Burnt Toast Vinyl satisfies the notability guidelines for music. Malinaccier (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Toast Vinyl[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing routine passing mentions; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep Meets WP:MUSIC's notion of "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." The label released albums from, e.g., Explosions in the Sky, Unwed Sailor, Damien Jurado, The Six Parts Seven, Denison Witmer, Yndi Halda, and Efterklang. The label has gotten its own coverage (see reffed interviews and media coverage), in addition to there being significant coverage of the albums it has released. Chubbles (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - number of notable artists the label has signed, but longevity, indicates that this label has made an impact on musical culture, and that music historians, musicologists, and discographers are likely to seek information about this label, thereby reducing the value of this encyclopedia if this entry is removed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stanlie James[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG and fails in particular on the areas of "significant coverage," "reliable," "independent coverage," and "independent of subject." There is no sourcing at all. There is nothing to indicate the subject of the article has any standing in her field. There is no reporting of her accomplishments other than an unsourced list of publications. There is no comment on the value of the publications, assuming they are real. This could be a case of WP:SPIP as perhaps it's intended to be her online CV (I'm not accusing the subject...someone else could have done it). She appears to be an academic, on whom the world has not commented. That does not, in itself, merit a biography. Even as a WP:NPF, the article will still need more sourcing and external commentary on her. GetSomeUtah (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems to me that, even as the article is now (as opposed to when this was nominated for deletion in good faith), it satisfies WP:NPF. The references to her work in King, Deborah K. (2010) and Barnes, Marian (2005) are both in books published by reputable academic publishers, and can be checked online. The same seems to be true of the Pedwell, Carolyn (2010) citation as it's published by a reputable academic publisher, (though it may not be checkable online). And this is quite likely only the tip of the iceberg since googling "Stanlie James" (in quotes) gives 10,400 general results and 4,100 book results. This also makes accusations of possible self-promotion (WP:SPIP) seem pretty implausible - with that many books available she could presumably manage far more than just the 3 independent citations she has now (and the none she had at the time of nomination) if she were promoting herself. And the article was originally created, and has now been greatly improved, by one of our most experienced editors (SarahSV), who has won two Million Awards, (one of them for bringing Female genital mutilation up to WP:Featured Article standard, so she presumably is well qualified to judge on the notability of the author of Genital Cutting and Transnational Sisterhood (2010)), as well as again making accusations of possible self-promotion utterly implausible. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "keep" argument here seems to be that her work has been cited a few times (but there are probably many more citations) and that the article was written by a good editor. Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The 'good editor' bit is mostly there to try to show the implausibility of the WP:SPIP part of the nomination. (Incidentally she is not just a good editor - in this particular field she is demonstrably a uniquely good editor, which is arguably somewhat relevant to what follows). But, apart from the SPIP aspect, the judgment of an experienced editor who is demonstrably expert in the relevant field may also be at least partly relevant to assessing the notability of the subject of an article, especially if it is under-developed. For example, a sufficient criterion for notability in WP:AUTHOR is "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." The "or" means that "The person is regarded as an important figure" is sufficient for notability. But most of us have no real way of knowing whether James is regarded as important in some field or not, and in that case we may have to rely to some extent on the judgment of those who demonstrably have expert knowledge of that field, and in that sense SarahSV's judgment seems relevant, at least to me (and justified by me per WP:IAR if necessary).
I did not say 'probably' many more citations, I said 'quite likely' (although this may be an understatement by me, given the 4100 Google Books hits). This seems relevant per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST because the article seems under-developed - all its best bits were added in a last-minute rush (partly for reasons already mentioned in my much criticized comment below).
That said, I have felt forced to spend more time on this than I feel I can reasonably afford, so I will probably (or should that be hopefully?) not be saying any more on the subject.
Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, as WP:BIAS tells us, being female and black probably means that Stanlie James's article is in practice liable to get far less work done on it than if she were male and white, and consequently makes it far more likely to be nominated for deletion, thus forcing female and black editors to drop what they are currently working on to rush to try to fix the problem, an exhausting process that presumably leads to such already under-represented editors being more likely to quit, thus further aggravating Wikipedia's Systemic Bias problem. Needless to add this is liable to then be made even worse if their efforts then prove to be wasted because the article gets deleted anyway.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This type of speculation is completely irrelevant to the conversation here. Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned what I said was and remains 100% relevant. I was and am merely trying to describe an aspect of this nomination and vote, and of many other similar nominations and votes, which tends to be damaging to Wikipedia.
2) It damages us in terms of editor retention as per our WP:WER project, in terms of Gender Gap (which damages our editor retention, and the quality of our subject coverage, and our reputation) as per our WP:GGTF project, and it presumably has similar effects in terms of minority participation as well (though I'm not aware of which of our projects, if any, specifically deals with that). I am well aware that the damaging effect of such deletions has been repeatedly complained about in the GGTF and elsewhere (though if someone wants explicit documentation on that I would probably first want to consult somebody a lot more expert than me).
3) These are matters which I honestly think people need to be aware of and need to take into account when voting, perhaps also when trying to assess whether there is a consensus, and perhaps also when making future nominations (this nomination has already been made, in good faith, as already mentioned, so I'm not really concerned about it, as that would be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted).

3b) This is probably especially important if people are uncertain about what they should do, as I'm not suggesting these considerations should automatically outweigh all other considerations.

4) Incidentally, please note that much of what I wrote above was not in any way 'speculation', but had already happened before I wrote my comment (as a look at the nominated article's edit history will quickly confirm).
5) I am not aware of any rule which says these seemingly entirely relevant matters should not be brought up in an Afd, nor taken into consideration there, but if such a rule exists I think I am obliged to ignore it in Wikipedia's interest per WP:IAR and per the related 5th of Wikipedia's 5 Pillars (WP:5P5). These are both completely opposed to any notion that we should somehow blindly follow some rules or traditions regardless of how much damage this may do to Wikipedia in practice.
6) Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is a longtime academic and this is one of those cases for which the details have to be checked closely, I think. First, GS citations look good, but there's some double-counting. For example, the two top hits are to the same source, one being to a book she helped edit and one being to a chapter in that book she wrote. This duplication is repeated at least an additional 5 times, if one looks through the GS listing – it is unclear how independent these are of one another. However, if considered as one contribution, her GS h-index would be around 7. She has also written many journal articles, but WoS shows all of them to be cited only in the low single digits or in journals that are not indexed. She has helped edit 2 books and WorldCat shows pretty good holdings (760 for the book just mentioned, and 620 for another book). This is probably the strongest argument for notability, however edited volumes are problematic in terms of assigning notability. For example, the first book (with >700 holdings) has 17 contributors who wrote articles. The subject has written several books on her own, but WorldCat shows single-digit holdings of these. Overall, a detailed look suggests this person has not had impact demonstrably above the "average professor" level. Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:AUTHOR. The three books listed are widely held, with the top books in 700+ libraries: Worldcat Identities. The article is sufficiently well sourced at the moment and establishes stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the nominator. I appreciate that the article has been improved since I nominated it. But it remains a straightforward listing of CV-type data, solely drawing on the works of the subject herself. The subject fails all four criteria of WP:AUTHOR: no evidence of being "widely cited by peers," no evidence of "originating a significant new concept," no "well-known work or collective body of work," and has "not won significant critical attention." Just listing the subject's books and saying they sit on library shelves doesn't do it. I don't think I have to remind people that we need people other than the subject herself commenting on these things -- none of that is in the article. I greatly respect the article's creator, SarahSV, and find it somewhat off-putting that other editors are implying the author is above the WP:GNG process and that her many awards somehow tilt the scales on the issue of Ms. James. Such assertions reinforce the notion that Wikipedia is a clique of insiders and continues to harm efforts to retain editors. The not-veiled-at-all commentary by Tlhslobus about the nature of the nomination is doubly offensive given my background. I would hope we could return to focusing on the substance of the article, rather than the creator and the nominator, and when one does that one sees that the article subject still lacks any mention of "significant coverage," nothing "reliable," no "independent coverage," and nothing "independent of subject." GetSomeUtah (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if anything I said offended you, though I'm not entirely clear precisely which part or parts of the complained-of comment (if that is what you mean by 'commentary') offended you (and I'm not sure that I really want to know either), as it was not and is not in any way intended to be directed at you personally. On the contrary, in my Keep vote, I explicitly said you had made a good faith nomination. My comment was merely trying to describe an aspect of this nomination and vote, and of many other similar nominations and votes, which tends to be damaging to Wikipedia, and which I honestly think needs to be taken into account in our present and future decisions, as explained in more detail above. (Incidentally, since you brought it up, I know nothing of your background, as it was and is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, and if I had been trying to make insinuations about you (which I wasn't), this would have been wrong of me regardless of your background). Or if you are objecting to my mention of SarahSV, I'm afraid this honestly seemed unavoidable to me once your nomination stated "This could be a case of WP:SPIP as perhaps it's intended to be her online CV." (It may also be relevant to notability, as I have now argued at length above). Meanwhile I would ask you to please try to assume good faith per WP:AGF, and to please try to refrain from making any further unwitting personal attacks on me per WP:NPA (Please note, as indicated by the word 'unwitting', that I fully accept that it was not your intention to make a personal attack). Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. meets both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR; a "straight listing of CV type data" when the CV data indicates the elements of notability , is entirely appropriate for an academic bio. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article seems to meet WP:PROF, and it can be developed. She has done some interesting work on families and on FGM, which can be expanded because secondary sources discuss it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Edwardx (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep does meet WP:NOTE, but still currently reads too much like a cover letter, or resume instead from a neutral point of view. Should be overhauled to read in a more encyclopedic fashion and tone of voice. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:06, 17 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Umansky[edit]

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

Per source searches, coverage is limited to business deals the subject has performed, how much money he wants for his home, and moving into a new home, but not finding much significant coverage about the subject himself. Does not meet WP:GNG. Could potentially be redirected to Kyle Richards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to Kyle_Richards#Personal_life where the subject is mentioned. Not independently notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 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) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burton D. Pusch[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate biographic information in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found very little online that shows article meets WP:GNG. RelaxedTim (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total and complete lack of anything even resembling a 3rd party indepdent source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SIGCOV not showing up in searches I run.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:52, 17 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 BBYO. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 17:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B'nai B'rith Girls[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Could potentially be redirected to BBYO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BBYO. Similarly, Aleph Zadik Aleph, the male component of BBYO, has no significant sourcing and should be redirected to BBYO. Yoninah (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of information organization, I agree with Yoninah on BBG only. I'm not against anyone putting out a better developed article later on or during this process. Yet as a WP:SPINOUT the BBG article is currently not developed enough for existence next to BBYO. At Aleph Zadik Aleph the situation is clearly different. Redirect for now unless things change. Ping me if they do. gidonb (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gidonb: the entire Aleph Zadik Aleph article is sourced to one source. I just nominated it for deletion. Yoninah (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Yoninah, thank you for notifying me. I'll look at the AZA AfD later. gidonb (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given the vast amounts of sources, my opinion on AZA is unchanged. The amount of sources IN the article is irrelevant. I would love to change to keep here is well but right now all BBG info is or can be added to BBYO. Ping me if the article is significantly expanded. gidonb (talk) 03:11, 16 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. Unanimous concensus.Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics[edit]

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

While this seems that it would be notable, per source searches, this organization has not received enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article does have considerable content and is followed by twenty references. Point of information - if this article is deleted, we may need to delete the article on SIAM journals, as Wikipedia has a separate article on SIAM journals. Vorbee (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is a summary of the references presently in the article as of this post (link). Thus far, only source #19 has a potential to demonstrate notability. All of the other sources are not usable to demonstrate notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Primary source from SIAM
2. Primary source from SIAM
3. Primary source from SIAM
4. Primary source from SIAM
5. Primary source from SIAM
6. Primary source from SIAM
7. Primary source from SIAM
8. Primary source from SIAM
9. Primary source from SIAM
10. Primary source from SIAM
11. Primary source from SIAM
12. Primary source from SIAM
13. Primary source from SIAM
14. Primary source from SIAM
15. Primary source from SIAM
16. Primary source from SIAM
17. Primary source from SIAM
18. Primary source from SIAM
19. Secondary source
20. Passing mention/announcement

Keep -- The article is horribly self-referential and a replica of its website. That can be fixed. The organization is notable. There are several subsidiary articles and categories -- list of publications and fellows, whose members are mostly notable (have their own articles). I understand the guidance that a group does not inherit the notability of its members, but I choose to ignore it in this case. SIAM is more notable than a chain of biscuit restaurants. Rhadow (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If you feel that the topic is notable, can you provide any independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage to qualify the assertion? This necessary coverage to qualify a standalone article does not appear to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello North America. we can argue about significant coverage is, but the article has had independent reliable sources for a few hours. Rhadow (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the society is the leading international one in its special field ; we even have a category Category:Fellows of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, because fellowship in the society is considered enough to show notability under WP:PROF. . Like most articles on Societies of all sorts here, the article needs editing for promotionalism and to improve sourcing, DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the major international society for its discipline, with over 500 article-space links. As well as the Fellow category pointed to by DGG, I would also point to Category:SIAM academic journals as evidence of the significance of this society as the publisher of several major and well-respected academic journals. It has nontrivial coverage in independent sources including [15] [16] [17] [18]. An important subject for the encyclopedia to cover, and one that passes WP:GNG. This is the kind of AfD that makes Wikipedia look ridiculous to the outside world: it's obviously a significant subject, so why are we even considering deleting it? Significance is not notability and that's especially true in general for academic societies but this one passes notability as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another offline reference that I found (just the reference, not its content): Auerbach, Isaac L. (1976), "Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM)", in Ralston, Anthony; Meeks, Chester L. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Computer Science, New York: Petrocelli/Charter, pp. 1282–1283. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet more sources: [19] [20] [21] [22]. The difficulty of finding sources for this kind of topic is not so much in their existence, but that searches are swamped by the many many hits that involve SIAM but are not independent and about SIAM. So it takes careful crafting of search terms to find the ones you want among all the chaff. But the fact that there's so much chaff should itself make it clear that this is a significant organization. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've used the third source in the yet-more-sources list to augment the "Books" subsection a little. Thanks for finding it! I'm going to take a break now. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and don't be ridiculous. If this article must be deleted, then one must delete the articles about other academic societies and associations that have a similar notability, such as American Mathematical Society, Association for Computing Machinery, International Mathematical Union. As SIAM is also a publisher, one should also delete the articles about scientific publishers with a similar notability such as Springer Science. D.Lazard (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've considering withdrawing, but this is not a "ridiculous" nomination, and stating such is sophomoric. Herein, some, but not all of the arguments for the article to be retained are rather subjective relative to notability guidelines. Since this is an important organization, one would think that many reliable sources providing significant coverage would be easily and readily available relative to this importance, particularly since the organization exists to this very day. Where is the significant coverage? I checked out the sources provided above by David Eppstein, which is appreciated: The first one is all right being sourced from academia and providing a brief summary, but, the second appears to only have passing mentions and is limited to one page (430), the third is a bit amgiguous with snippet views, and the fourth appears to only be a passing mention on page 10. Now, I understand that notability guidelines are just that, guidelines, and exceptions exist, but again, if this is so notable, where is the significant coverage? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. One of the world's most important mathematical societies and an important scientific publisher. AFD is not cleanup. —Kusma (t·c) 21:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's important, but where is the significant coverage in reliable sources? ~~This could be merged to Joint Policy Board for Mathematics, even verbatim, which would retain the content despite the organization potentially not actually meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be difficult to find sources about the organisation, but that is mostly because they are eclipsed by thousands of hits about SIAM conferences and publications. Also, it does not help that "Siam" also has other meanings. But "SIAM conference" is usually something related to the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Your merge target is ridiculous for a publisher. —Kusma (t·c) 21:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like my functional merge target. Are you suggesting that the provision of a valid WP:ATD is some sort of joke? I don't find that particularly amusing, but I tend to take notability seriously. Please consider providing sources that provide significant coverage of the topic herein instead. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am only telling you that it is not a valid target. If you believe it is, you are misunderstanding what SIAM does. Here, by the way, is SIAM's entry in the main online history of mathematics resource, the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. —Kusma (t·c) 21:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate: please consider providing reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic. Do they exist? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your merge target is almost as ridiculous as this AfD. SIAM is widely known and organizes many important activities (conferences, journals, awards) for its discipline. It belongs to this small and unimportant umbrella organization with half a dozen of its friends among the society world and that's what you think it should be merged to? It's like saying a famous scientist should be merged to an article about his weekly poker game. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my merge suggestion above, but it is viable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snow keep completely ridiculous nomination. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I nominated this lazily as "advertising" would the nom be better then? Regarding keep !votes with no other rationale, see WP:JUSTAVOTE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator – As I stated above, I'm well aware that there are exceptions to notability guidelines. Despite this, it will be amusing if this article is automatically retained based upon a simple !vote count. I am also amused about the chain-effect repeated use of the term "ridiculous" regarding this nomination, particularly when this is used as a primary rationale for retention of the article without any other qualification. I'm much more impressed by the work of User:XOR'easter, who has significantly improved the article, despite having not contributed to this discussion as of this post. Happy holidays! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps the mathematician editors here are too shocked by the proposal to engage seriously with the impetus, which is that it's surprisingly hard to find notability evidence for SIAM. Here is my weak attempt:

Keep An important publisher and scholarly society. Finding historical details about SIAM is irritating, because you have to sift through the heaps of publications from SIAM and citing articles printed by SIAM. But I've managed to do a bit, and in my opinion, the WP:PRIMARY concern no longer applies. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- An example of what I mean: the JSTOR search link in the list up top yields 11,906 results. That in itself is an indication of the sheer presence of the organization — but it's not light reading. XOR'easter (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Not quite convinced per some of the arguments herein, but not interested in wasting people's time with a nomination that will likely be kept regardless of whether or not the topic is actually notable or not, or even worse, via a simple !vote nose count. Perhaps we should merge content from WP:IMPORTANT to a notability guideline page, seriously. Happy holidays. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayat Production[edit]

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:36, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High Two[edit]

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:26, 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HotMovies[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches have only provided bits of coverage, such as this 2-paragraph mention, but not much else besides passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That mention is just quoting from him. The other news stuff is just based on interviews and press-releases. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:17, 15 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High Treason Pictures[edit]

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Couldn't find any reliable source that covers the subject. Lourdes 10:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:14, 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham Distributing Corporation[edit]

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

Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Able to find this short mention, but nothing else. Not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 15 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage in reliable sources consists of passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than a promotional announcement written by a SPA. Rhadow (talk) 12:38, 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. Consensus is that the Society for Human Resource Management is of note. Malinaccier (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Human Resource Management[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources providing in-depth coverage are primary sources, press releases or from the organization itself. Not finding enough independent source coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The Washington Business Journal source on the size of the organization does lead me to suspect there may be a pony in all this, but I'm not finding it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- When we retain articles about four-store chicken chains, a society with $113 million budget is not really a candidate for deletion, is it? The top guy makes $1.3 million [23], more, I bet, than the whole chicken chain. Rhadow (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SHRM is the primary professional association in the field. The best reliable source I can find to meet ORGDEPTH is this Journal of Management Education paper assessing its impact on the curriculum of HR education programs. Additionally, though it was written by a SHRM executive and may not fully qualify as independent, the peer-reviewed Academy of Management Journal has somewhat detailed coverage of some of the organization's practices, and this Conference paper from MIT recognizes it as representative of the field as a whole. In addition to the article's existing notes of SHRM work with the EEOC and Department of Labor, SHRM has been invited to testify before Congress. In trying to locate these sources, I found their work cited in a number of academic business journals. MarginalCost (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The size and scope of the organization are a strong claim of notability, which is backed up by the scope and depth of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources about the SHRM. Alansohn (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- well known by anyone in the field of human resources. I seem to recall seeing television commercials earlier this year to promote the organization. I don't see it mentioned in the article, but they actually provide certifications for human resource professionals.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:32, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Research and Action Center[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote retain: Search of the translated article under its french name, Centre de recherche et d'action sociales, produces additional results which seem to me to satisfy the criterion of Deep coverage: "provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub". Also, it meets the audience criterion with coverage which is national. The independence of sources criterion seems to be satisfied by references which show inclusion in independently published books as well as in several of the footnotes which satisfy the independent source criterion. Since English is the most commonly spoken language worldwide, I think that this article on a notable French NGO deserves to be translated into the English Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Source searches under "Centre de recherche et d'action sociales" are only providing passing mentions. See below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please check all my latest additions. I don't know about the search engine (is it the main criterion for all notable articles?) but would none of these qualify: [24], [25], published book quoted in [26], a much more detailed history of the center carried in an independent source, the annual, four-day conference carried on the Catholic schools' website, [27], an independent commendation of its website, the prominence given to its editorializing in an independent journal, [28]. And what of the two works quoted in the original French article (and included in my references)? Jzsj (talk) 14:59, 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. Michig (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yakimanka (Moscow Metro)[edit]

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

The metro station which is not under construction, and not even the project exist. It is just at some point somebody decided that it would be cool to have a metro station here which would offer transfer to another station, but the decision to build the station was never taken, and the planning never started. The article is unsourced; the Russian interwiki is misleading. Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't really say too soon because this will never happen in the near future or ever. It is more along the lines of a WP:HOAX since a serious project has not been known to exist.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Russian interwiki leads to sources, bad faith attempt of Ymblanter. https://rg.ru/2009/12/15/yakimanka-site-anons.html 78.51.248.237 (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is nice to have IP users accusing me of bad faith, but the above source says precisely what I said in the nomination: Somebody sometime had an idea that it would be cool to build such a station, but the planning never started (note that the source is from 2009).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, IP cannot prove it was bad faith. But your claim "The article is unsourced; the Russian interwiki is misleading." can't be proven neither. How would you substantiate the claim that it is misleading? ruWP has a full list article on not existing stations, and your deletion attempt would remove sourced information from English Wikipedia that exists in Russian Wikipedia. How does removal of verifiable sourced information help WP:PURPOSE? ru:Непостроенные станции Московского метрополитена. 77.180.119.180 (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no Russian interwiki. There is no Russian article about this metro station. The interwiki is in fact a redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that all objections on this page belong to the globally banned user Tobias Conradi.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as having articles on stations that are not going to be built would be pointless. Current site for the Metro construction site does not even list the station. in Russian TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 13:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no current plans to build this location.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 15 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. Consensus is to keep although arguments for independent notability here are a little weak. Merge opinions have merit and this should be considered. Michig (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pall Mall Restaurant[edit]

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

There's no reasonable assertion of notability. Its site was used for various purposes by notable firms in a range of industries, but that doesn't make the restaurant notable DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the restaurant shows no significant in-deptch content. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the foundation of the Rugby Football Union in the restaurant in 1871 is a well-attested (and cited) fact and a definite claim to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment] – Possibly merge to Rugby Football Union as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this restuarant appears to be historic and no longer operates I found a book source giving it significant coverage from 1914 source. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Rugby Football Union. Changed my initial !vote above to a comment. More offline sources are likely available, since the internet didn't exist in 1871, and the establishment has historical significance. Also, the article has an assertion of importance. Deletion of this topic does not improve the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some period coverage available in google books. Rugby union founding definitely a claim to notability (and definitely the sort of factoid someone would want to look up).Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck-A-Rama[edit]

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

very small restaurant chain with no substntial references for ntoability-- just notices and PR DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, in bylined news articles and in books. Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD. This restaurant was founded in 1966, so it's likely that additional offline sources are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Sullivan, Tim (June 11, 2007). "All You Can Eat". Salt Lake City Weekly. Retrieved July 3, 2016.
AP (April 30, 2004). "Chuck-A-Rama apologizes to couple, won't change buffet". USA Today.
"A Research Study of Chuck-A-Rama's Customers, Food, and Services". Brigham Young University. 1983. (Full study)
Trotter, Rachel (September 3, 2016). "Chuck-a-Rama celebrates 50 years of old homestyle meals, family recipes". Standard-Examiner.
Leong, Grace (September 5, 2006). "Chuck-A-Rama celebrates 40th". Daily Herald.
Phillips, Valerie (September 6, 2006) "The choice is yours ... Chuck-A-Rama celebrates its 40th anniversary today". Deseret News.
Roche, Lisa Riley (April 30, 2004). "Chuck-A-Rama offers apology". DeseretNews.com. (Longer than the AP article)
Gill, A.A. (2013). To America with Love. Simon & Schuster. pp. 87–. ISBN 978-1-4165-9621-9. (subscription required)

Delete -- FFS, a ten-store all you can eat brand? What's new? What's notable? I do notice that coffee isn't on the menu. That would be interesting, but no one mentioned it. Rhadow (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The number of stores a restaurant chain runs has nothing to do with notability whatsoever. Notability is by and in large determined by notability guidelines such as WP:N, rather than subjective opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The BYU study is a student paper; the Gill book has only a paragraph making fun of its name; the Deseret News/AP item is about an utterly trivial incident about how much fooda particular couple was entitled to eat at the buffet in one of their restaurants; the others are press releases/ I would take the listing of references during this argument more seriously if there was any indication they had been screened for being substantial and reliable. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from the nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-germane content
Comment – Go ahead and delete the article then. All we need is a couple more "not notable" drive-by !votes and it will be sealed. It's curious that some users seem to be against restaurant- and company-related articles from the start, even resorting to !voting twice to promote deletion. DGG just "happened" upon this article shortly after I performed some edits to it, and is eager to delete all of the sudden, despite having never been involved in the article before. Automatically agreeing with one's buddy is clear favoritism, but there's no policy against favoritism. As such, it's not really important. Check out the revision history to see what's what: two against one: ST and DGG against NA = delete, right? Ugly at best, and potential off-wiki canvassing at worst. This discourages editors from improving articles, and it is also creepy. The sources I provided above are examples; more are available. The solution appears to be for me to stop editing articles that DGG and ST don't like; then they won't be immediately nominated for deletion. Perhaps some Wikipedians just want all company-related articles to be ridden from the encyclopedia. I don't forsee much reason to care at this point; if it's deleted, then it will just be another erasure of American history. While we're at it, be sure to nominate Microsoft for deletion; it's sourced from press releases, routine coverage, and churnalism. This is actually quite true, see Microsoft#References for starters. Happy holidays, and godspeed with the anti-company crusade. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] let's be realistic--at least half the time I agree with your deletion nominations. There are some fields that are particularly prone to promotionalism , and restaurants are among them, because the nature of the content is inherently promotional, and the nature of the sources tends to be that way also. I have gradually learned which restaurant chains are actually considered important, and I am learning not to nominate them. If I do, other people join the discussion,and the consensus decides to keep them. I have never imagined I could always tell rightly what the consensus will be at AfD--or anywhere else in WP. If I got upset when it was different than I thought, I would have left long ago. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] DGG just "happened" upon this article shortly after I performed some edits to it, and is eager to delete all of the sudden, despite having never been involved in the article before. … The solution appears to be for me to stop editing articles that DGG and ST don't like; then they won't be immediately nominated for deletion. – Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), I've encountered this pattern of editing before. It is very unpleasant and makes people who are targeted very disinclined to edit the encyclopedia. DGG (talk · contribs), please refrain from "creating irritation, annoyance or distress" or causing "disruption to [Northamerica1000's] enjoyment of editing" (WP:HOUNDING). Cunard (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-germane content

Comment – Go ahead and delete the article then. All we need is a couple more "not notable" drive-by !votes and it will be sealed. It's curious that some users seem to be against restaurant- and company-related articles from the start, even resorting to !voting twice to promote deletion. DGG just "happened" upon this article shortly after I performed some edits to it, and is eager to delete all of the sudden, despite having never been involved in the article before. Automatically agreeing with one's buddy is clear favoritism, but there's no policy against favoritism. As such, it's not really important. Check out the revision history to see what's what: two against one: ST and DGG against NA = delete, right? Ugly at best, and potential off-wiki canvassing at worst. This discourages editors from improving articles, and it is also creepy. The sources I provided above are examples; more are available. The solution appears to be for me to stop editing articles that DGG and ST don't like; then they won't be immediately nominated for deletion. Perhaps some Wikipedians just want all company-related articles to be ridden from the encyclopedia. I don't forsee much reason to care at this point; if it's deleted, then it will just be another erasure of American history. While we're at it, be sure to nominate Microsoft for deletion; it's sourced from press releases, routine coverage, and churnalism. This is actually quite true, see Microsoft#References for starters. Happy holidays, and godspeed with the anti-company crusade. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

let's be realistic--at least half the time I agree with your deletion nominations. There are some fields that are particularly prone to promotionalism , and restaurants are among them, because the nature of the content is inherently promotional, and the nature of the sources tends to be that way also. I have gradually learned which restaurant chains are actually considered important, and I am learning not to nominate them. If I do, other people join the discussion,and the consensus decides to keep them. I have never imagined I could always tell rightly what the consensus will be at AfD--or anywhere else in WP. If I got upset when it was different than I thought, I would have left long ago. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG just "happened" upon this article shortly after I performed some edits to it, and is eager to delete all of the sudden, despite having never been involved in the article before. … The solution appears to be for me to stop editing articles that DGG and ST don't like; then they won't be immediately nominated for deletion. – Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), I've encountered this pattern of editing before. It is very unpleasant and makes people who are targeted very disinclined to edit the encyclopedia. DGG (talk · contribs), please refrain from "creating irritation, annoyance or distress" or causing "disruption to [Northamerica1000's] enjoyment of editing" (WP:HOUNDING).

Cunard (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Sources say it is a fifty year old chain of ten in Idaho with regional to international coverage. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not have the sustained coverage that we need to show notability. It is a splattering of coverage that is just routine for a restaurant, nothing to show exceptionality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Northamerica1000. This 50-year-old company has received sustained coverage of nearly a decade (2004 to 2016) based on Northamerica1000's sources.
This 2006 article, titled "Chuck-A-Rama celebrates 40th", notes:
Forty years ago, Alva Greene and his two sons-in-law were mesmerized by the TV series "Rawhide." But for Greene, the star of the show wasn't Clint Eastwood, it was the chuck wagon.
Like many restaurateurs in the '60s, Greene, a former J.C. Penney manager, was attracted to the concept of a mobile kitchen that prepares food for cowboys working on a cattle drive. That became the impetus for his family business, Chuck-A-Rama Buffet Restaurants Inc., which opened its first restaurant in Salt Lake City at 744 E. 400 South on Sept. 6, 1966.
A routine article would not discuss a company's history in such level of detail.
This 2016 article, titled "Chuck-a-Rama celebrates 50 years of business", discusses the company's history in detail. Here is a quote:
When his father, Don Moss, started the business with partner Wayne Chamberlin, they tried to get a bank loan to start a second location. The bank turned them down, telling them issuing loans for a restaurant was as risky as giving out a loan for a Corvette or a motorcycle. Don Moss and Chamberlin never used a bank for another loan.
A routine article would not discuss a company's history in such level of detail. That a restaurant has been in business for 50 years is significant.
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on everything both WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy, which say:
Source 1 above is a travel guide on guide suggestions
Source 2 and 8 is a general WP:Not news story
Source 3 is an ordinary research study, common every year for numerous businesses
Source 4 is a WP:Notguide again
Source 5, 6 and 7 is a general business announcement
Source 9 is as the book itself shows, a travel guide of someone's travels
To quote the relevant policy parts now:
WP:Not guide: Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like....the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
WP:Not advocate: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise
WP:Not news: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia
From WP:CORP quoted above: Except press releases, press kits, or similar works; any material which is substantially based on a press release; self-published materials; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly; other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people"
WP:GNG: "For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, are not considered independent.

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter

WP:Deletion policy: pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Wikipedia. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject). Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. (De-spamming attempts here, here a d here; if 3 different edits couldn't make an impact, that's a sign WP:Deletion policy covers it)

To also analyze the latest sources:

"Greene....former J.C. Penney manager, ....attracted to...concept of a mobile kitchen....prepares food for cowboys working on a cattle drive....became the impetus for his family business" (see WP:GNG#Independent: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it)
"When father, Don Moss, started....business with partner Wayne Chamberlin....tried to get....bank loan to start....second location" (same as above)

We can't be expected to accept materials that is still indirectly by the subject since the easiest Notability guideline GBG itself says independence is key here, and coverage on that independence is also required. 2 votes based their Keep on GNG, yet I quoted exactly what it said in highlights above. As WP:Articles for deletion says, we analyze sources and an article in what they say, including citing whatever relevant guideline and policy said what. A claim above says "A restaurant in business for 50 years is significant" is easily applicable for any company and this is not a Notability criteria at all, as coverage is what matters here, not age claims. This is equally as thin as any company with a strong presence in a particular community, and including that would be WP:Indiscriminate collection of information. Deletion is based on policy which is a necessity whereas Notability is a secondary possibility of an article's chances, not a guarantee and its lead states this: A topic is presumed notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "A routine article would not discuss the subject in such a level of detail" actually, a routine promotional article will generally make use of the company's press releases to put in whatever personal detail about the founder's motivations he wants to include. Both of the two articles Cunard mentions isarehonest enough to put the material in quotation marks. Actually reading the references shows the true nature. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- coverage is routine or in passing. For example, the book offered above as a source mostly says:

"There's not much to say about Chuck-A-Rama..."

Such coverage does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing special about a typical spam about some restaurant company, adds no value so there's no use in keeping it Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:24, 16 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 07:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Goat Beer[edit]

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

elaborate promotional article on not very important brewery. The contents is almost entirely a catalog listing . DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination: this is an ad for this company. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Craft/micro breweries are becoming more prominent in Australia, and especially Victoria. I think the business has significant coverage, e.g. this article in the Herald Sun about being bought out by Asahi. The article was also created in 2005 by en editor who worked on a wide range of Melbourne and Australia related topics, so it was not begun as a promotional article. Therefore we should be using editorial means to remove any promotional content from the article rather than deleting it altogether. At the absolute worst it should be redirected to Asahi Breweries, but I think even that would be overkill. Jenks24 (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possibly merge to Asahi Breweries as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Jenks24. Craft beers are getting a lot of notice particularly in Melbourne. However, I would not object to a redirect provided a reasonable amount of the content was actually merged to Asahi Breweries. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of their beers has won numerous Australian International Beer Awards medals so we can either have an article on this specific beer or the brewery that makes it, i go with the latter. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It definitely has sufficient notability from what I've seen, although I think the wiki article could probably do without the laundry list of one-off beers (not sure what to do about that though). Anyway, here is some improved or more noteworthy sourcing from a very quick search if anyone wants to use these or move the list to the article's talkpage:
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/crafty-goats-20121022-280hx.html
http://www.beat.com.au/music/mountain-goat-beer
http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/food/qld-taste/beer-of-the-year-mountain-goat-beer-claims-champion-beer-of-australia-queensland-taste-reveals/news-story/4f7ba8d03b1e7fbd100a1a520dce9756
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1304/S00319/mountain-goat-beer-now-available-in-nz-the-goat-story.htm
https://www.goodfood.com.au/eat-out/news/raising-a-glass-to-gary-the-goat-20171117-gznf5y
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/melbourne-craft-beer-brewery-mountain-goat-sold-to-asahi/news-story/4883a7e6f8d1dec5de027f57ed73e56b
https://www.theurbanlist.com/melbourne/directory/mountain-goat-brewery

SunChaser (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies WP:NBUSINESS. Dan arndt (talk) 01:23, 17 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 07:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Patel[edit]

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

Non notable actress who has acted in small roles in movies which feature her daughter. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and the only source provided is an IMDB link Jupitus Smart 07:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for all reasons above. Article is far too brief and stubby in content. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. There is no inherent notability in being the parent of an actor. FITINDIA 19:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we removed from Wikipedia all articles that only use IMDb as a source. Even more so when we are dealing with the article having been tagged for having such a problem for 4 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 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 07:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suninder Sandha[edit]

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

Non notable businessman. Probably created as part of some PR exercise to whitewash his image after this. Fails WP:GNG as all the other sources explicitly mention their articles as PR pieces. Jupitus Smart 06:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 06:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,, Spam as usual, nothing else. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:25, 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. Sandstein 07:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a far away land[edit]

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

per WP:NFF, WP:TOOSOON for this article. Unable to locate sources and currently does not meet WP:GNG Operator873^CONNECT 06:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto. I couldn't find even one source to support any notability guideline. Lourdes 10:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is only, as the article itself says, an upcoming movie, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article has no references. Vorbee (talk) 11:06, 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. Sandstein 07:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hansen Nichols[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable person; he appeared on a singing competition in the Philipines in 2008. The current version is promotional and possibly auto-biographical; earlier versions (dating to 2008) do not establish notability either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the vague notability here. To me, the individual debated here is just a contestant and not a full-fledge celebrity or musician. Article is too much of a promotion and reads like a tabloid article instead. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generally there's no coverage from reliable sources to merit an article. The previous AfD in closed as redirect also and since then nothing has changed –Ammarpad (talk) 14:24, 15 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Wildside[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not-notable album, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per sources, meets notability criterion WP:NMUSIC#2, does not meet #3, and may meet #2 since the NZHerald review wasn't listed at the National Library, suggesting that there may be have been more reviews in print sources of the era, particularly NZ music magazines (of the two reviews listed at the NL, Rip It Up might not be sufficiently independent). Likely to appear in The Complete New Zealand Music Charts: 1966–2006. Downsides of merge/redirect Wildside appear greater than keeping separate, but that's the other option since NMUSIC#2 means at least marginal notability. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Not having any sources is not a valid reasoning for AfDing an article. That was the rationale behind a lot of the speedily kept AfD articles the Coin945 nominated. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 12:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a simple compilation album that did not receive any international coverage and by a majority of groups who also did not receive any international coverage. A review in the NZ Herald hardly counts for notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Gpc62 (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gpc62 (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hydronium_Hydroxide. Meets WP:NALBUM#2 (appeared on a national chart). — Gpc62 (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared on the compilation album chart, not the album chart. Ajf773 (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wildside Records. The chart position and the NZ Herald review show real world notability, but as a label compilation, discussing within the article on the label seems the best approach unless there's a significant amount to say about it (which there isn't). --Michig (talk) 08:36, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Sures[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong pass of WP:NMUSIC and little quality reliable sourcing to support it. The strongest claims here are that he won an award that is not notable enough to pass NMUSIC #8, and the source for the fact is the award's own self-published website about itself, and that one non-notable critic for one alt-weekly newspaper named his album as one of her favourites one year, which is not any NMUSIC criterion at all. And apart from that critic, the only two reliable sources here are deadlinks in local coverage from his own local area, one of which Waybacks as a brief namecheck of his existence in an article that's primarily about Del Barber, and the other one is entirely unretrievable from either Wayback or ProQuest and therefore unverifiable. This is not enough to pass NMUSIC or GNG. Bearcat (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks good reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sures has won a category in the John Lennon Songwriting Contest http://jlsc.com/winners/2005a/winners.php which is itself notable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon_Songwriting_Contest Ross-c (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The simple existence of a Wikipedia article about an award is not, in and of itself, enough to make that award one that confers notability per NMUSIC #8 — that attaches to awards on the top tier of notability, such as the Junos or the Grammys or the Polaris or the Brits, not to every music award that exists at all. And, in fact, the John Lennon Songwriting Competition's article is so poorly sourced that I've had to nominate it for AFD discussion too. To be notable enough to make a musician notable for winning it, the award has to be one for which the media cover the award presentation as news — an award is not notable enough to meet that standard if you have to rely on the award's own self-published website about itself as proof because media coverage of the announcement is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Nominator is spot on with assessment of the Lennon Award and of the weaknesses of the references given in article. However, a google of his name finds among many social media and trivial performance announcements a few instances of decent coverage and non-promotional third party reviews, http://www.vueweekly.com/ben-sures/ is one example. Yeah, the coverage is kind of small time, but cumulative enough to signify the subject is worthy of encyclopedic importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sourcing to pass GNG or even V; most source links are dead. Awards only create the presumption of notability, and the John Lennon Songwriting Contest has itself been deleted as non-notable. Sandstein 07:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For someone who has had such a long career, the level of coverage isn't massively impressive, but there's enough to merit an article, e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. --Michig (talk) 08:11, 17 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 07:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia–Poland relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. article claims Poland has an embassy in Cambodia but there is none listed at List of diplomatic missions in Cambodia. There is also nothing meaningful to make a notable relationship such as significant trade, agreements, migration or state visits. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article goes into some depth but does not indicate a substantial relationship and it is the only article I can find. Support merging information to the foreign relations articles for each country.--TM 04:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of a substantial relationship. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. What is worse, much of what the stub says is untrue. Cambodia and Poland have no embassies with each other; their mutual interests are served by the Cambodian embassy in Berlin and the Polish embassy in Bangkok.[40] — Kpalion^(talk) 09:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was surprised to find an extensive article at pl wiki pl:Stosunki polsko-kambodżańskie, but it sourcing is poor and may fall under WP:OR and if not, has serious WP:GNG issues. Both of those are not that problematic for pl wiki which has lower standards, but I couldn't find anything in the article that would make me want to cast a keep vote. PS. I started a deletion discussion on pl wiki, and people have pointed out some sources like the intereview with Polish ambassador. Not sure if there is anything else, but people on pl wiki 'think' there should be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Shaddock[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, board member of a couple of things. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like they've been successful, but not notable in their career. Article is really a CV more than anything else, and no indication of meeting the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete. The article reads more like a CV on LinkedIn than Wikipedia. No signs indicative of conformity to WP:GNG. Notability is clearly not established. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that it looks like a non-notable CV. At first it looked like a reasonably impressive career, but all three of the references given in the Career section failed verification. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Run of the mill-businessman not verified by the sources. Flagrantly not notable Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a few brief mentions, but nowhere near the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Very strong give him an knighthood and keep him’’’. Now I notice you can personalize your really important strong vote I’m going to go back and redo some of mine. Someone chopped mine off because I suggested they were w$&?ers. Well guess what? They were. But Lyn has a silly name so you gotta feel sorry for him and anyway the finest library in Australia has a fine of all his newspaper cuttings so I surprise he is more important than me. While I’m at voting ‘’’keep’’’ for Lyn Baby can you tell me why my name only comes up red. All you blueblooded Cranbrook boys come up in Blue. Laddeeda!Publicschoolboy (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources really in the article itself. BEFORE shows some, but not enough. It might be possible to establish notability based on non-digital archive material - but that hasn't been done here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This creation of articles on non-notable alumni of Newington College has gotten totally out of hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~delete~~ There is a bit more here but probably not sufficient for WP:NEXIST. Aoziwe (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to weak keep per further NLA material. Aoziwe (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Australian Financial Review last year headlines him as 'master of the property cycle' and the National Library of Australia keeps a file of his newspaper cuttings so he looks notable to me. Castlemate (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castlemate May I suggest you use templates for references, for example ((cite web)) rather than raw links. Aoziwe (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion but I'm an old dog incapable of new tricks. I have largely lost interest in Wikipedia and its bureaucracy. The AfD system is broken given that a person who has been part of the community for a week can cause such harm. More importantly the people who "vote" can be entirely ignorant in the ares in which they vote. A good example of this was Warwick Cathro who was so close to being deleted until the library community came out in force to support him. Up until then the commentary on an important information technologist was patronising and banal. Castlemate (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient for WP:GNG. The NLA file might prove otherwise, but until someone actually goes and inspects it it's impossible to say. Frickeg (talk) 10:31, 15 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. Michig (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Christie (Serjeant-at-Arms)[edit]

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

This article has no real claim to notability: he was Serjeant-at-Arms (an unelected public service position of little note) for the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. This isn't remotely a position conveying inherent notability (wouldn't even be in a federal parliament) and there's nothing else to suggest notability. Sources are mainly births/deaths/marriages and other trivial references. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources in article do not establish notability. My BEFORE doesn't seem to find much else, though I did find information on a different William Christie who served in the same capacity in 1849 (possibly father or grandfather) - [41] - so be wary of results that are too early when searching.Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't establish notability although he had his honourable contributions. Too trivial for Wikipedia if you ask me. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete The equivalent of a bouncer/copyboy for parliament. Flagrantly non-notable Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of individual notability and, as others have noted, his position as serjeant-at-arms for a sub-national legislative chamber is not notable either. Eloquai (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The descriptions given by others trivialise the position. Nevertheless, he seems to have been a NN civil servant. I note that his is not in Australian Dictionary of Biography. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone's comment here seeks to "trivialise the position" or argue that it's a meaningless role. Rather, they note that it is not a notable position for the purposes of establishing encyclopaedic notability and significance. We have articles for sergeants-at-arms in national legislatures, but not state/province level officeholders, which seems broadly appropriate. Eloquai (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Keep’’’. This bloke wore a funny uniform so I reckon he can’t be all bad. What about being on the TAB? When you start looking at these people who delete I reckon they are worse than this Wally who puts up his school mates. When I notice you are all third public servants it all starts to make sense.Publicschoolboy (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is more here but it is single event type material and other, routine reporting. It could be used to significantly improve the article, but possibly not enough I think. Aoziwe (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is another example of the spamming of Wikipedia by the article creator with articles on non-notable people, and then an insistence on insulting anyone who questions there disruptive editing of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot see much evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The SMH obit is not bad, but ultimately routine. Frickeg (talk) 10:28, 15 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Castle[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of an actress. As always, actors and actresses do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because the article lists roles -- she needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage about her performances in at least some of those roles, and preferably some by which we can actually verify some biographical details as well, before she actually satisfies a notability criterion. But of the five sources here, not even one of them is a reliable source at all: there's her IMDb profile, a tweet from her sister, a deadlinked primary source announcement of a DVD release, a deadlinked podcast and a non-notable PR blog. These are not acceptable sources for the purposes of getting an actress into an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very prolific Gemini Award-winner. One of the stars of Todd and the Book of Pure Evil, Arthur (TV series) and has had other significant roles in multiple films and TV shows, thus easily passing WP:NACTOR ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.")--Oakshade (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the article neither states nor sources anything about her winning a Gemini Award. And secondly, as I pointed out above, the notability test for an actress is not "has had roles", it is "has received enough reliable source coverage for the having of roles to pass WP:GNG". No number of roles exempts an actress from having to be properly sourced — it's the amount of media coverage she did or didn't get for having roles, not the number of roles in and of itself, that determines whether she passes NACTOR or not. One role can be enough if sufficient media coverage for it happens, and a hundred roles can be not enough if sufficient media coverage for them doesn't happen. Bearcat (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sourced info re Gemini award added by Oakshade appears to be enough for notability. PamD 15:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. She's on the cusp of satisfying NACTOR, but I couldn't find any real media coverage (other than an interview or two). The Gemini was for an ensemble, not just her, so it's not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing is too superficial to pass WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:49, 17 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. Ultimately, nobody contests deletion. Can be recreated if better sources are found. Sandstein 07:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Flyers (flight school)[edit]

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

Failing WP:GNG. Likely promotional article created by WP:SPA. Though some work has been done to clean up, the article maintains a promotional slant. Only claim for notability is apparently being the oldest flight school in the US, however this has only one source in a local paper and I have not been able to find other independent sources. Other articles indicate Boeing School of Aeronautics and the Curtiss Flying School being older. Therefore, run of the mill company. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not !voting on this - yet, at least - but (pulling up my rocking chair and cane) back in the day of the mid 1990s I read just about every aviation magazine I could get my hands on, and ads for American Flyers were everywhere. My gut feeling is that there's probably enough out there in offline sources, at least, to document N, but somebody will have to dig. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: There are certainly tons of ads and advertorials in aviation magazines found via google books, but I remain sceptical about independent editorial. It may indeed exist in physical books somewhere. I did find some coverage, such as those 3 ads [42], [43], [44]. There's also what I'd call an advertorial, such as [45], [46] or [47]. Also, routine corporate coverage such as [48]. Clearly, many of the facts are covered, however I have yet to find independent secondary coverage and depth of editorial coverage _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too suspect that there may be more content out there. A few articles like this is all that is required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: I think this particular article does not establish notability as it fails both WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The wording of the article indicates strongly that it is a press-release and it would fall into the category of routine coverage of corporate events. While such article proves the existence of the firm (which is not in question), it does not establish notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim it establishes notability. I claim that a few more articles with a similar amount of content would give it notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I spent about three hours looking online last night and found sources from Flying Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, Plan & Pilot, Nova Scotia University, the City of Santa Monica (smgov.net), the Orlando Sentinel, FAPA, General Aviation News, CCHeadliner, and the Wichita Business Journal. However, the scope of the research so far seems to be concentrated heavily around a few recent current events. I'm going to do a search today for print sources and see what I can come up with. I think this would be a great "teeth-cutting" first project for me. Help and guidance along the way would be very appreciated. Dragon-360 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --before I make up my mind. I speak as a subject matter expert. It is probably factual to say "the longest surviving commercial flight school in the United States with the most expansive geographic reach. The article needs a rewrite to include History and an up-to-date description of its operations model. The Part 141 assertion is an important one. We might a well capture this story; general aviation is an industry past its mature phase. It's not a huge company, but within its sphere, it is notable. It was probably more notable in 1978, the peak year of GA. Rhadow (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 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. Michig (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Patrick Blake[edit]

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

Not notable, seems to be an amateur musician at best for subject has not released anything on a major label. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way below the level of notability required to meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. It looks like the album Mr. Blake released in 2010 remains his only record to date, and the website for Second Chance Soul Records is dead. With no interviews or reviews online, it appears that there is absolutely nothing that can be added to the two lines of this article, even after seven years. Richard3120 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like @Richard3120 said, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. There is no gist and meat in the content. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 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. Michig (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Dewar[edit]

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

Has been through speedy deletion twice and failed both times, but was never put through AfD. Non-notable individual. (Note, there are at least two Keith Dewars that appear in Google hits, one of them is the CEO of Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, and the other is a professor of tourism. This article is about the professor.) There is no suggestion that this individual meets WP:PROF. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails in many aspects, no sources, original reasearch. CheetaWolf (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source is the subject's personal home page. This is just not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article about a non-notable professor in a professional training program. I see no evidence of notability after a Google search. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Wikipedia is not LinkedIn and this article looks something like a personal CV. Those speedy deletion back then should have got rid of this article. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Brunswick-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that being assistant dean of a university faculty is enough of a notability claim to preclude speedy deletion, but I'm less clear on why it didn't then come to AFD instead — it's quite far from "inherently" notable enough to survive an AFD discussion in the absence of any viable reliable sourcing about him. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 17 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. Michig (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Leighinmohr[edit]

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

This article is a fake. There was no such peerage created in 1934 or in any other year. It is accordingly not listed in The Complete Peerage, nor by David Beamish (the former Clerk of the Parliaments), nor by Leigh Rayment in his index, nor in any of the other directories of the Peerage. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No sources can be found for the term. Looks a hoax. Lourdes 01:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mention in Times obituary of Hugh MacDowell Pollock (Mr. H. M. Pollock. The Times (London, England), Friday, Apr 16, 1937; pg. 16; Issue 47660. - available online to UK library users and other subscribers). Suggest a mass reversion of the creating editor's questionable additions. Note Adelaide Pollock, created today. PamD 08:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've found a Times death notice for Adelaide and an aviation website too - neither of them cited as sources in the article. So she seems OK. Though her dad's title will need to be removed from the article. PamD 08:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And have done some work on her article including moving her and removing the mention of the unsourced barony. PamD 09:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If the title had been created, that would be recorded in London Gazettee. Accordingly, this is a case of WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Hugh Pollock has an entry in Who's Who and the Dictionary of National Biography. Neither mention him being ennobled. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the proposer and others. --Editor FIN (talk) 06:37, 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 speedy keep. Clearly notable with claim of significance. @HindWiki: You must read the article for any claims of notability first and search for sources before nominating if you're not sure. Therefore, closing it speedliy per WP:SK#1 (non-admin closure) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 03:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dimbleby (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable TV series. HindWiki^Connect 00:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep "Jonathan Dimbleby was a British TV programme as shown on Sunday Mornings on ITV between 1994 and 2005". It aired for eleven years as a Sunday morning talk show on a national network. You failed to do any WP:BEFORE or use WP:COMMONSENSE here, so I'm going to fix it. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 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. Michig (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gogo Charters[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG due to lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. Promotional. Rentier (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A highly promotional article based completely on primary sources and press releases. Nothing here is worth saving. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails on many aspects. No source of notability for the topic. CheetaWolf (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheeta was indeffed for abusing multiple account. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin note: Struck !vote by blocked sock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much promotional content an article can take. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. RelaxedTim (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 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.