The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasures (brand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I do not think any of the sources here are sufficient for notability of this brand, nor can I find anything better. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the page a bit and added some additional references that I could find. 1q9x (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG. The sources, as they currently exist, are to retail outlets (e.g. Urban Outfitters), hybrid retail-editorial outlets (e.g. HYPEBEAST), or contain only routine coverage. My personal BEFORE fails to find anything that would help this get over the GNG threshold. Chetsford (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - no notable Ghits, fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scale-Up Venture Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

References point to routine coverage, write-ups that either don't mention the subject or only in passing, and sources which aren't considered reliable sources. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't appear to unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete CORPSPAM that lacks sufficient quality or depth of coverage to pass the GNG Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks significant independent coverage. Bradgd (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks independent reliable sources. Kpgjhpjm 09:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - spam. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Company has none of the sourcing in the article needed to establish notability and no additional reliable and verifiable sourcing could be found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Definitely fails WP:GNG and is spammy. -- Dane ^talk 22:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Definitely meets criteria and fits the following category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Venture_capital_firms_of_the_United_States. If you disagree, lets delete the whole category. DBlogger1970 (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBlogger1970 Hey there, I see you're new, so welcome! Fitting a category may mean the subject exists, but not that it's notable. I'm also gradually taking you up on your offer of nominating others in the category. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the test for notability, references are all PR and announcements, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia H. Allred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very short mentions. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. See also: WP:SPIP:

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.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't have inherent notability standards for religious figures and, even if we did, the general presidency of the Relief Society of the LDS would certainly not meet those standards (unlike maybe the High Council). In the absence of that, this would have to meet the GNG which it does not. Chetsford (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 3,000 LDS high councils. So no, membership in a high council is much, much less likely to be a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. I actually meant to say the Quorum of Twelve. Chetsford (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The leadership of the LDS Church Relief Society is a top position within the Church, regularly addressing general conference, women's conferences and noted for their touring and participation in temple dedications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – None of the above points qualifies notability as per Wikipedia's standards for notability. Subjects that the LDS church considers to be noteworthy do not get an automatic free pass for a Wikipedia article. Sorry, but one's own made-up, personal standards for notability such as the above do not align with Wikipedia notability guidelines. Per Wikipedia's notability standards, what is required is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Said necessary coverage does not appear to exist for this subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. There are no reliable references to back up this article and there is no significant coverage. AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree, fails WP:ANYBIO as above. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 21:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nan Greene Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to passing mentions and some name checks. Not finding any significant coverage in independent sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails both MUSICBIO and ANYBIO; sources in article are lacking and my BEFORE fails to find anything that redeems it Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Although tagged with WikiProject New Zealand, there is nothing of interest to the NZ project. NealeFamily (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was a missionary in New Zealand. The New Zealand project may want to ignore foriegners who served there as missionaries, but that seems narrow on their part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)new[reply]
    • Just be clear - she would not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO at all in New Zealand. It is not the fact that she was a missionary - she is just a non-notable missionary in New Zealand having received no coverage at all in local media as far as I can find. NealeFamily (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete did not hold a major leadership role in the Church, although she served as a missionary. And my searches found almost nothing in the way of sources. I did find "Eight distinguished BYU alumni honored for years of service," Deseret News; Salt Lake City, Utah [Salt Lake City, Utah]24 Apr 2009. It is just not enough. Searched for and failed to locate articles about the hymn she wrote, just a few videos of folks playing or singing it. Fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A much better way to describe her postion in New Zealand is co-leader of a rotating group of about 150 missionaries at any given time. That is more than just "a missionary". Although mission presidents and their wives who co-preside with them are generally not notable for this. At least from the 1930s on when they began generally serving 3 year terms. A few people before that like John R. Moyle have their notability added to by being mission president, but generally they are notable for other things. Even Nephi Jensen would probably not have an article if it was not for his role in a state legislature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments John. I took a look at the Category:American Mormon missionaries in New Zealand. From a quick sample of those mentioned, she does not seem to have the same level of merit needed to meet WP:BASIC. Most have notability from other fields. If I were taking it from a solely NZ perspective (that is assuming they had no other call to fame) Augustus Farnham and his fellow missionaries, who were first in the country, would meet the criteria based on their NZ mission being the first. Later ones would need to show something more notable than just being a missionary or in charge of a group of missionaries. Most religious organisations have people in that kind of role and they would not be notable in terms of Wiki's notability criteria unless there was something unique about them. NealeFamily (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability argument really wrests on being a hymn writer, and weather Hunter's level of hymnwriting is notable. For what it is worth, about half the sourcing comes from the biography of her father-in-law, who clearly was notable, but that does not translate to her being notable, it does translate to her being sourceable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Daask (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. Feel free to further discuss the article on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wreathgate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The lead paragraph is one sided and misleading -- BOD -- 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the particular instance of one-sidedness and what did you find misleading? Super-Mac (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the lead paragraph is "one sided and misleading", why don't you just clean it up instead of deleting the whole article? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the Keep, If you have a problem with text you could just change so you think it's a fair representation, not seen your issue yet though. This issue is growing in real time so updates and changes are going to become more and more necessary: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45170622 Super-Mac (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Al Ajami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We're not the yellow pages. Vexations (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing of substance in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom, and promotional article. Emily Khine (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - easily incurs G11. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze PR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article fails WP:NCORP. Sources are generally non-reliable and not intellectually independent. Others fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Beyond that, the article is pretty purely advertising, and may be suitable for an appropriate speedy. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. References fail WP:NCORP and the article fails WP:SPIP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolute WP:CORPSPAM Chetsford (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus whether the subject passes WP:NPOL, and there is not enough discussion to see if the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uche Nwosu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable, doesn't fly WP:GNG Mahveotm (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I interpret being the chief of staff and a commissioner to a state government as passing WP:NPOLITICIAN. Believe me, if you are not notable you won't be having major publishing houses covering you like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 all in the first page of Google search. I admire your work Mahveotm, but I feel like this nomination was a little too hasty. HandsomeBoy (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being the chief of staff and a commissioner to a state government does not passes WP:NPOLITICIAN, these are appointed position not elected ones. It even states that Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. And mentioned by press houses (albeit not independently) because of a political ambition also does not passes WP:GNG. I'm not pro delete - I assume you already know, and did a WP:BEFORE before nominating. Mahveotm (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like the United States, Nigeria practice a federal system of government, which implies government powers being shared across federal, state and local authorities. According to WP:POLITICIAN Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature, what this means is that unelected state and federal appointees could be presumed notable depending on the significance of their office. The chief of staff of a state is a consistent respected authority present in all states in Nigeria, and solely responsible for the affairs of all staffs in a state. I consider it in the same class as the chief justice of a state in terms of the routine coverage received. He is not a local official, but a state official. He is also a former commissioner in the state.

When I have access to my PC, I'll reply you on GNG, but personally it isn't even necessary since I think NPOLITICIAN has been met. Even though my next statement sounds WP:CRYSTALBALL, I will still state it, when a sitting governor handpicks a candidate as his successor in eastern Nigeria, he usually have a 80% chance of winning, and that has led to many independent analysis by the media and questioning of their democracy by political analyst since he is related to the governor by marriage.

Let us see what other AFD commentators think. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have any pity for our eyes with that fluo text? -The Gnome (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

haha..fixed it to what I initially wantedHandsomeBoy (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as per WP:NPOLITICIAN AND WP:GNG. Terrible nomination, nominating a state official! A simple WP:BEFORE and reference to Wiki policy would have substantiated the notability of the subject rather than wasting the community's time. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't go around belittling people at AfD to achieve a point, you should also tell us HOW he passes GNG and what criterion of nPOLITICIAN was met as this is not a voting process. The above discussion with HandsomeBoy is an example of how to participate at an AfD. Mahveotm (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not "belittling" anyone. I am addressing this poor nomination without regard for Wiki policy — some of which I pointed you to. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wiki policies especially WP:BEFORE—before nominating any article for AfD. Poor nominations wastes the community's time. Believe me, some editors who dislike poor nominations might have used stronger language than I have. I exercised restrain here. For your info, your condescending remarks may be viewed as a personal attack. I was commenting on this poor nomination but you turned it around and started commenting on me. Please read Wiki policies before bringing any more articles to Afd. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being chief of staff to a state-level politician is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL in and of itself, and the sourcing being cited here is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG. One of the three sources is primary, while another reads suspiciously more like PR bumf than journalism — and at least as of the time I'm writing this, the third takes me not to any content about the subject that I can even evaluate for its reliability or lack thereof, but to the confrontational splash page of a cyberhacker group. This is not the correct kind of sourcing to make a person notable because "media coverage exists", if what he's potentially notable for isn't an automatic guarantee of inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about being a former state commissioner in addition to that? HandsomeBoy (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since WP:NPOLITICIAN accepts politicians who have held national office and, in practice, we interpret this, at least for the United States of America, to include all Deputy Chiefs of Staff, e.g. Michael Deaver, Zachary Fuentes, Henson Moore, and so on. Accepting as notable the Deputy Chief of Staff position for American political appointments but not for Nigerian ones would be unpardonable. -The Gnome (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since his position is considered within the cabinet by the rules of Imo state, and members of a cabinet in a state in a federal republic are notable. True, we lack articles on most of them, and in fact on most cabinet ministers world-wide, possible at present, and especially if you go back to 1980, let alone 1950, but that is a different issue. I do have to point out that what US federal offices grant notability is not at all relevant to weather a specific office grants notability at the sub-national level in another country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's good agreement that this article needs a lot of editing. Perhaps major trimming, and/or refactoring with related articles. Possibly WP:TNT applies. There is, however, no consensus to delete it. The number of pageviews is not a factor in determining notability. On an administrative note, I'm over-riding User:Redditaddict69's relist, partly because WP:RELIST argues against a third relist, and partly because you shouldn't relist a discussion you participated in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriation (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Since the creation of this article other closely related articles such as Cultural_appropriation and Ethnomusicology have expanded to cover cultural appropriation in general and through music. There's been suggestions on the talk of the article page to delete it as this topic is already covered in other articles there should be no need to keep this poorly sourced article anymore. Other related articles like aforementioned are already covering the topic with better sources and can expanded in the future. MayMay7 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This area obviously needs a good editor. There are three distinct concepts here: borrowing from other composers, borrowing from other genres, and borrowing from other cultures. IMHO, the last topic belongs in a non-existent cultural borrowing article, but unfortunately this is a redirect to cultural appropriation which I might characterize as a WP:POVFORK. Borrowing from other composers seems like a plausibly notable topic, but I'm out of my expertise to say for sure. The solution is editing, not deletion until someone demonstrates they're going to write something better. Daask (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep – Yes, this article needs some serious reshaping, but I think the subject is notable enough and researched enough (never fails to hit 15 views daily, occasionally gets near 60) that it should be kept. I'm not opposed to a deletion then restarting immediately from scratch, but I am opposed to "salting the earth". Redditaddict69 14:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the sources introduced during this AfD are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FuelCell Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Previous AfD closed as "Delete" on 10 January 2014, but the article was never actually deleted recreated on 25 January 2014. Company has very little RS coverage beyond routine company profiles and stock updates. –dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 12:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 12:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 12:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*N/A per WP:CORPDEPTH. There are a couple of very local newspapers with non-financial information, but they focus on job creation etc, without covering actual company-oriented action etc details. All other sources that weren't covering routine info were non reliable/independent. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Pending while I consider refs Nosebagbear (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The previous AfD resulted in deletion on 10 January 2014; the present article instance was created on 25 February 2014‎. The same editor has been notified of both AfDs (as well as an earlier CSD on the same topic). AllyD (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. The article qualifies for G4 speedy deletion, but I thought I would give it a chance at AfD since it's been a few years. –dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had a similar view on CSDing, that given 4 years redoing the AfD seemed warranted Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Re-creation shortly after an AfD deletion without a review process (WP:DRV, WP:AFC) is to be discouraged, but it is appropriate to reconsider this article here given the 4 years that have passed. The company in question continues to go about its business, as seen in the text and GreenTechMedia reference that I have added. However, while that GreenTechMedia article does show independence, for example in sceptical assessment of claims of profitability being just around the corner, I am not seeing enough to demonstrate attained WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  
  From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

  
  
  Analyst reports
  
  
  1. This 12 January 2018 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

     B.Riley/FBR upgraded FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) from Neutral to Buy with a price target of $3.50 (from $2.50).

     Analyst Carter Driscoll comments "After a difficult 1HFY17, we believe FCEL has turned a corner with an improving revenue mix, margin profile, and record backlog. We believe the company should be able to almost triple its operating portfolio from FY17 to FY18, moving from a portfolio of 11.2MW (generating electricity revenues under longterm PPAs) to over 30MW. We also believe the company should be able to garner another multiMW equipment sale and long-term service agreement with a second Korean power producer. Taken in conjunction with the 40MW of projects FCEL should develop for LIPA starting in FY19, a burgeoning relationship with Toyota for distributed hydrogen, and new fuel cell RFPs in CT, we see a more balanced revenue mix leading to higher and more sustainable margins and eventually EBITDA breakeven."

  2. This 9 February 2018 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

     Roth Capital upgraded FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEl) from Neutral to Buy, price target $4.00 (from $2.00).

     Analyst Craig Irwin cites the remediation of the 30% investment Tax Credit which he expects will help broadly improve project economics which should bring in new bookings momentum.

  3. This 1 December 2016 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

     FBR Capital reiterated a Market Perform rating on FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL), and cut the price target to $2.50 (from $3.00), after recent setbacks cause the company to lower its F4Q16 revenue guidance. FCEL guided F4Q16 revenue to $23M–$25M, lower than consensus forecasts. Part of the reduction was from not winning any clean energy awards and part from the reclassification of a fuel cell plant constructed for Pfizer that was originally expected to be sold but will be accounted for as a sales leaseback transaction.

     Analyst Carter Driscoll commented, "This morning, December 1, FCEL lowered its F4Q16 revenue guidance after its recent setbacks regarding awards from certain clean energy RFPs. The company is cutting head count to lower its cost structure to better align production levels with its order book, cutting the annual production rate to 25 MW from 50 MW. FCEL is reducing head count by approximately 17%, or 96 positions, primarily in direct manufacturing but also some administrative positions, and taking a $3M charge in FY17, 50% of which is expected to be in cash severance costs. Additionally, the company hopes to lower operating costs and save $6M in annual opex. We believe these steps are the appropriate responses to the loss of expected awards in the aforementioned clean energy RFPs. Until we have more clarity that the reduced production levels are truly temporary in nature, we are taking a more conservative outlook for fuel cell power generation aimed at utility-scale projects and have lowered our revenue estimates and price target to $2.50 from $3.00."

  4. This 26 October 2016 article^archive.is from StreetInsider.com notes:

     FBR Capital downgraded FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) from Outperform to Market Perform with a price target of $5.50 (from $9.00).

     Analyst Carter Driscoll commented, "Yesterday, FCEL disclosed that it did not win approval to move into contract negotiations for the 63.3 MW project located at Beacon Falls, CT. Management disclosed that there was no explanation provided as to why the project was not selected. There were several positive characteristics that appeared to position the project for success. We suspect, but have not yet been able to verify, that economics may have played a part as the award winners for the tri-state clean energy RFPs were wind and solar projects, which typically have a lower generation cost. Regardless, the loss of the project negatively impacts our FY17 revenue and margin forecasts and we have lowered estimates as a result. While we believe there are still some near-term catalysts, we are less confident in the timing of potential awards and believe the stock is in a "show-me" mode. We are stepping to the sidelines, removing FCEL as our Alpha Generator pick, cutting our price target to $5.50 from $9, and lowering our rating to Market Perform from Outperform."

  5. This 3 October 2017 article^archive.is from The Fly notes:

     Oppenheimer analyst Colin Rusch started FuelCell rating and a $4 price target, calling the company a "clear leader" in stationary fuel cell applications that he believes can achieve positive operational cash flow in the next 12-18 months.

  https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/FCEL/price-target/^WebCite contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

  Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
  6/8/2018	B. Riley	Set Price Target	Buy	$4.00	Low	Paywall link
  2/9/2018	Roth Capital	Upgrade	Neutral ➝ Buy	$2.00 ➝ $4.00	High	Paywall link
  1/11/2018	Cowen	Set Price Target	Buy	$3.00	High	Paywall link
  10/4/2017	CIBC	Initiated Coverage	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$4.00	High	Paywall link
  10/4/2017	Oppenheimer	Initiated Coverage	Outperform	$4.00 ➝ $4.00	High	Paywall link
  9/5/2017	FBR & Co	Reiterated Rating	Hold		High	Paywall link
  8/15/2017	Raymond James	Initiated Coverage	Market Perform		Medium	Paywall link

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FuelCell Energy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The analyst reports from FBR Capital Markets, Roth Capital Partners, Cowen Group, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Oppenheimer Holdings, and Raymond James Financial are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.

  Cunard (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: although this company is listed, it's a micro-cap. With revenues of $185M, it's too insignificant to have generated significant coverage, resulting in a promotional article, as in:

"The company has been tapped by the Office of Naval Research to provide assistance on the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV) program"!

The project would not be significantly improved by the retention of this article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP on the balance of things. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That a company is a micro-cap with revenues of $185 million does not mean that "it's too insignificant to have generated significant coverage". From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherent notability:

  smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products, though articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable per WP:NOTADVERTISING.

  This company has received significant coverage in analyst reports.

  Here is even more coverage:

  1. Eisler, Matthew N. (2018-05-29). "Fuel Cells Finally Find a Killer App: Carbon Capture". IEEE Spectrum. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.

     This is an extensive profile of FuelCell Energy.

     The article notes:

     One of the salient facts about advanced power sources is that new products typically take decades to enter the marketplace. As more than one observer has noted, there is no Moore’s Law for batteries. Sustained government support is thus crucial. With help from the U.S. Department of Energy, FuelCell Energy was able to focus on the thankless task of improving the efficiency, cost, and durability of its molten carbonate fuel cells. After years of research and development, the company demonstrated a 2-megawatt plant in Santa Clara, Calif., which operated from 1996 to 1997. In 2003, FuelCell Energy shipped its first commercial unit. To date, it has installed several hundred megawatts of capacity in 50 locations around the world, most notably a 59-MW combined heat-and-power plant in South Korea. Today, the company is the leading provider of molten carbonate technology.

     ...

     The energy crisis and environmental movement of the 1970s brought renewed interest in all kinds of clean power, including the carbonate fuel cell. It was in this ferment that FuelCell Energy, then known as Energy Research Corp., was founded. “What we thought made the most sense was a power generation system that could run on pipeline-volume natural gas, and high-temperature fuel cells like carbonate did that,” Leo says.

  2. Wald, Matthew L. (2014-12-14). "Capturing Carbon as a Byproduct of Running a Fuel Cell". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.

     The article notes:

     As [fuel cell] is piped between the stages, the gas is at 70 percent purity, and most of the other 30 percent is innocuous steam. So the engineers at the company that built the installation, FuelCell Energy, are pulling off a chemical bait-and-switch.

     ...

     In FuelCell’s design, a coal plant adds a fuel cell unit next to its smokestack, and the fuel cell soaks up the carbon dioxide and adds power to overall output. Some energy is used — the demonstration unit here would produce eight kilowatts, enough for a midsize commercial air-conditioner, but in carbon capture mode makes only about six kilowatts — but the loss is more manageable than drawing energy from the coal plant for conventional carbon capture.

     And if the Environmental Protection Agency follows through on its intent to require existing coal plants to shrink their carbon output, the company’s fuel cells could do the job in two ways, by capturing some carbon and by raising the electricity output over which the remaining carbon dioxide is spread.

     ...

     FuelCell energy is not alone in looking for a more energy-efficient way to grab carbon dioxide; other ideas are percolating.

  3. Schwartz, John (2016-05-05). "Exxon Mobil Backs FuelCell Effort to Advance Carbon Capture Technology". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.

     The article notes:

     For years, FuelCell Energy has been considered a company to watch. Its technology promised to help economically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, which could help combat climate change. The Danbury, Conn., company might be able to make a difference, experts said, if only it had a partner with really deep pockets.

     Now it has one.

     In an agreement announced on Thursday, Exxon Mobil said it had tightened an existing relationship with FuelCell in hopes of taking the technology from the lab to the market.

     ...

     FuelCell Energy’s products can also strip 70 percent of the smog-producing oxides of nitrogen from the exhaust of coal-burning power plants.

  Cunard (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In the past, Cunard has located good analyst reports. But the ones above are not "analyst reports" but comments on stock price. An analyst report provides in-depth analysis on the company. Also, the links to the articles above are not intellectually independent as per WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Analyst reports always both comment on the estimated stock price and provide in-depth analysis of the company. They do not merely comment on the price because that would not be useful to their customers who pay a lot to purchase the analyst reports.

  The quotes I presented here are only snippets from analyst reports that are under a paywall. To get the analyst reports' in-depth analysis of the company, we would need the paywall copies, which I do not have.

  There is analysis of the company in the snippets presented here. For example, the FBR Capital Markets analyst report as summarized by another source says "Part of the reduction [in price target] was from not winning any clean energy awards and part from the reclassification of a fuel cell plant constructed for Pfizer that was originally expected to be sold but will be accounted for as a sales leaseback transaction."

  And another report provides analysis of the company, saying, "Yesterday, FCEL disclosed that it did not win approval to move into contract negotiations for the 63.3 MW project located at Beacon Falls, CT. Management disclosed that there was no explanation provided as to why the project was not selected. There were several positive characteristics that appeared to position the project for success. We suspect, but have not yet been able to verify, that economics may have played a part as the award winners for the tri-state clean energy RFPs were wind and solar projects, which typically have a lower generation cost. Regardless, the loss of the project negatively impacts our FY17 revenue and margin forecasts and we have lowered estimates as a result."

  Cunard (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is more information from another source, Smarter Analyst, about the analyst reports (bolding added to emphasize some of the analysis):
  1. This 7 June 2018 article^WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:

     Oppenheimer analyst Colin Rusch maintained a Buy rating on Fuelcell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) yesterday and set a price target of $4. The company’s shares closed yesterday at $1.74.

     Rusch wrote: “FCEL posted solid revenue but disappointing GM on product and generation revenue. We expect both to recover as revenue grows, especially as the company finishes liquidating high cost inventory. We continue to believe FCEL has a clear path to cash flow breakeven as it grows product sales to Korea and expands its owned project portfolio. We are encouraged by Korean customer signals, project wins in the US, and progress on securing project financing. We would not be surprised to see the company to be able to announce new orders in Korea over the coming months as it moves forward building the US portfolio. We remain constructive on the shares as we believe concerns about sustainable growth and cash burn are overblown.”

     This provides extensive analysis of the company.
  2. This 11 June 2018 article^WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:

     B.Riley FBR analyst Carter Driscoll maintained a Buy rating on Fuelcell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL) on June 8 and set a price target of $3.50. The company’s shares closed on Friday at $1.75.

     Driscoll wrote: “CT clean energy awards the next catalyst. FuelCell Energy (FCEL) delivered F2Q18 revenues and EPS below our estimates, largely from the timing of additions to its power generation portfolio and a $0.4M charge to COGS for abandoning a small project no longer deemed economically viable. FCEL’s record backlog of $1.6B and recent ITC extension support the transition to building its power generation portfolio, which remains on track to grow almost 3X to reach over 30 MW (generating electricity revenues under long-term PPAs) by FYE18. Management detailed the financing needs and economics of a theoretical $40M project (we estimate 12 MW) that would utilize project debt for construction and FCEL’s working capital position and deliver ~40% EBITDA margins.”

  3. This 10 June 2016 article^archive.is from Smarter Analyst notes:

     In a research report released today, FBR analyst Carter Driscoll reiterated an Outperform rating on shares of FuelCell Energy Inc (NASDAQ:FCEL), with a price target of $9.00, after the company missed fiscal second-quarter forecasts on lower revenue, and various one-time expenses. ...

     Driscoll wrote, “We are more cautious, near term, as project awards are slower to materialize, but we believe they will come. Weak F2Q16 results partly reflect the ongoing transition to more sale/leaseback projects, low-margin component kit sales to POSCO (which end in F4Q16), $2M in nonrecurring charges for rectifying past service contracts (hurt service margins, but should be over), and higher-than-expected product investments. Due to slower-than-expected awards from multiple RFPs that FCEL bid into in F1H16, the company cut FY16 guidance, from $170M–$210M, to $140M– $170M. We view this as a timing problem, not a demand issue.”

     “With 125MW worth of competitive bids over multiple potential projects, there is no shortage of demand; we believe FCEL stands to win at least a substantial portion of them. But the timing of awards appears tilted towards the latter part of FY16 rather than towards the current quarter,” the analyst continued.

  Cunard (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard's sources and analysis do demonstrate that the article passes WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard. Satisfies GNG. 185 million dollars is not small either. James500 (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - (altered vote) the additional sources, particularly the ones with significant non-financial detail (about what they do etc), I feel give a satisfying of NCORP. Many of Cunard's sources do still fail CORPDEPTH, but I believe sufficient detail is provided to meet the required criteria. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I hope someone takes it upon themselves to improve the article with the sources mentioned here. Daask (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments for deleting this article centre on the subject's supposed lack of significance, concerns over promotionalism, and the amateur and fairly out-of-the-blue nature of this fight. Keep !votes hinge on the coverage of this subject in reliable sources. These sources are not of the sort that can be dismissed out of hand, but those arguing for deletion have not convincingly demonstrated why they should not count towards meeting WP:GNG; indeed there generally isn't much engagement with the sources among the "delete" !votes. As such, no outcome other than keeping this is possible here. Vanamonde (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KSI vs Logan Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSI vs. Joe Weller. A boxing match between two Youtubers, with insufficient non-promotional coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator. No support that this is a notable boxing event.PRehse (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Passes the GNG. It's been given significant coverage in Polygon (Feb 2018, "YouTube boxing just went international, so when does YouTube get involved?"), The Verge (Jun 2018, "Logan and Jake Paul’s fight with KSI is shaping up to be deeply embarrassing"), and The Independent (Mar 2018, "KSI vs Logan Paul: The inside story on two of YouTube's biggest stars and the biggest white collar boxing match in history") over the course of five months. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 16:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 00:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be kept, but it certainly should not be a speedy keep. WP:NEVENT says routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article; individual sports events are generally not notable. If there were a good redirect target, I would suggest that; but the WP:XY problem makes it difficult to redirect to either person's article. I also note the sources describe this as "deeply embarrassing" and "may be scrapped". power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems I am wrong in my speedy keep. I have struck it. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage as shown by Wugapodes. --Deansfa (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fight for a non-existent title, and this article tells us nothing about whether this is a sanctioned fight. The previous fight was completely non-notable, and unless something ghastly happens here, this seems like it'll be a one-day media distraction for fans of the two YouTubers and nobody else. This information is better off in the subject's individual articles than it is in its own article (and this is also a WP:TOOSOON case where the fight can still be called off for a number of reasons). Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The event has recieved coverage, I agree with Wugapodes. However, it absolutely could use a bit of expansion. EggRoll97 ^(talk | _contribs) 04:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. To add on to Wugapodes, Business Insider and The Guardian. Abequinn14 (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I guess my links just prove the noms point. "I also note the sources describe this as 'deeply embarrassing' and 'may be scrapped'." Not much shows that the fight is notable, if anything at all. Abequinn14 (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This event has received more than enough coverage to qualify as notable. Aelimian21 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - I can see how this could provide some pop interest, but the boxers aren't professional (I'm aware this is also true at the Olympics). The first match wasn't notable, either. Even if kept, I'm not sure the title of the article is suitible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At least at the Olympics there's a goal at the end and a basic structure of rules and referees (same for the Golden Gloves). Here, we don't know the sanctioning body and if the refs have ever judged a fight. Nate • (chatter) 06:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sufficient sources provided discussing the fight to pass GNG. The point that the fight is described as "deeply embarrassing" is irrelevant; GNG only requires coverage, not positivity. OZOO (t) (c) 10:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easily more than enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. 207.164.152.162 (talk)
• Keep - News sources are talking about the fight in the mainstream media and as such outlets are covering the fight, it would only be fair to suggest keeping the page up. See here, here, and finally, here. --Pokkeballs17 ^(talk), 12:55, 11 August 2018, (GMT)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep due to recent involvement between the two that has attracted millions of viewers worth of attention on KSI's channel, Logan Paul's channel, other Celeb channels (e.g. PewDiePie) in addition to countless YouTube news channels and even some Mainstream Media. Currently, this page reaches 2,500 daily views without fail (possibly due to deletion nomination, but still is a ton for a deletion nomination page–those usually just get 100 daily) and sometimes passes 3,000 making it relevant enough to keep. This definitely needs a 2nd deletion nomination after the drama between the two dies down someday and this page becomes irrelevant. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits)} 02:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Mainstream media coverage aswell as thousands of tickets being sold at one of the UK's largest arenas. ^[1] User:TheMasterGuru

• Keep per above. 344917661X (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fails passes the GNG. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: did you mean "Delete - fails the GNG", or "Keep - meets the GNG"? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: yes.^[FBDB]
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 01:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry all, I miswrote. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Doesn't pass subject-notability-guidelines but passes general notability guidelines.
  Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 01:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pop culture novelty, not notable boxing match doktorb _words^deeds 05:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:10YT. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: WP:10YT isn't a reason to delete, if anything, it seems a reason to keep for the time being and see how coverage develops after the event: "Just wait and see...Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball." The essay 10YT is a part of even cautions against using it as a reason for deletion, from the first section of WP:RECENTISM: "Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted...". The essay is about how to cover notable recent events, not determining the notability of an event. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Struck previous comment for this updated one. Mainstream media coverage (from sources such as BBC and Sky News) as well as thousands of tickets being sold at one of the UK's largest arenas. Also expecting this fight to break multiple armature boxing ticket sales (which are expected to sell out the venue with 21,000 ticket sales^[2]) and views and maybe even break boxing pay-per-view numbers. In addition, multiple professional boxing personalities are involved and have taken interest. In addition to the over 50,000 page views this page has received in the past week and promises to be much higher come fight night. More than enough to pass GNG.^[3][4]TheMasterGuru (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for bare minimum coverage just barely passing WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage from The Verge, BBC News, and many more. — Newslinger talk 21:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pop culture novelty. TBMNY (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This event has no true relevance on impact of the world itself. You can argue that cartoon wikis are on here but my expectetion is that they're notable characters within the cartoon that has a impact on the world itself. This boxing tournement has no real prize at the end of it making it a random boxing match for no true goal. You may claim that the winner gets fame but it's true but not a real prize in the boxing match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRexBot (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — easily has enough coverage to be considered notable. Passes GNG with ease, very suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.127.148 (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Besser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nonnotable doctor Staszek Lem (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete having a major politician visit your clinic does not make you notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per above, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SIGCOV. He did what any effective medical centre leader would have done, nothing more. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Daask (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SoWhy 19:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anger Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an obvious attempt at advertising with little other justification for its existence. Should have been speedily deleted when created. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is, I think, one of the small number of articles created as an obvious attempt at advertising which is actually notable. The article cites multiple reliable sources, all of which contain substantial discussion of the topic, and so satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. I can't access the Bloomberg source, but I can't see any WP:ORGIND issues. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. the reverences ae either minor or thesort of human interest about unsusual events. This isn't as unsusual as it sounds, actually, andusing the genetal name for a particular business is undue promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a directory listing for a nn company. Fails WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - This has generated two articles in New York Times, and one in Le Monde. The further reading section I just added shows plenty of independent coverage. Daask (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm a bit concerned that we're seeing this, this, this, and this as trivial coverage. I'm not convinced that the content needs to be in this particular page; it could be a page about the phenomenon, with a section covering this particular instance; and it could possibly use a rename to addrss the "title is promotional" concern brought up by DGG; but this meets GNG quite comfortably, in my book. Vanamonde (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it has significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, according to WP:CORPDEPTH. I would add though, that, listing a bunch of sources at the bottom of the article does not help making the article itself better. Those sources can be used, with care, in the article, thereby expanding it and making it more interesting. That work will also help the AFD process. --1l2l3k (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all keep comments, but this seriously needs more information. I'm not opposed to a second nomination in one to two months if this isn't "revamped" because it does seem somewhat like advertising at the moment. If the NYT article is mentioned, that'll certainly help with credibility. Redditaddict69 14:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SoWhy 19:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Batul Soltani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Claim made for being an Iranian politician, but all I could find was this source that describes her as a MOIS employee. Devotes herself to writing against political opposition group MEK, which seems to be a tactical effort to discredit political opposition groups. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sourcing is mainly primary, that is things she wrote, that does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Daask (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this person meets either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, the two applicable thresholds. Vanamonde (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete – While officeholding politicians are almost always notable, there is no sourcing that proves she is. If that can be found before deletion, then I'm in favor of keeping. If not, then delete. Redditaddict69 14:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gluck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although Ben Gluck has co-directed animated films - There is nothing notable about him. There are no interviews/articles about him that I can find (only one's he's done about the film Alpha and Omega). The reason this article has no sources is because there are none. Wikipedia is a combination of knowledge that has been published; unfortunately this article has been written as first hand research and not based on published sources - Therefore there is no way to verify the information provided in this article. ツStacey (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not sure why I had this article on my watchlist, but I concur with Staceydolxx, this subject is non-notable. Waggie (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable animator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Feudalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A concept created by a couple of people with no independent sourcing about it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and WP:GNG is not met Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From what I can see, it doesn't appear that this meets WP:NEO. Per the guideline: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term." Most of the results that I see are links back to the original paper in which the authors coined the term (and the rest don't look like reliable sources), so the notability guideline is not met. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient uptake and secondary material to meet GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable and not enough coverage. Harut111 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wass Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lots of minor roles, but doesn't look like he meets WP:NACTOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a bunch of minor roles do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Hut 8.5 21:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indygo Arscott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of an activist whose claims of notability are not properly referenced as getting them over WP:GNG. Of the eight footnotes here, three are primary sources that cannot support notability -- Facebook, Twitter and a piece in which they're the bylined author of content about themself -- while four of the other five are just glancing namechecks of their existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things, and the last tangentially verifies the existence of an event while completely failing to mention the subject's name at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you source an activist as notable enough for an encyclopedia article -- they have to be the subject of the sources, not the author of their own sources or a person whose name gets briefly mentioned in coverage about other subjects. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Although there are many primary sources, I do believe that the news articles written about the subject provide some notability as the events were fairly recent (one rally was hosted by the subject themselves) and there could be more news coverage in the near future as the subject's activism develops, especially after the Doug Ford rally held approximately two weeks ago. GeorgeMHall (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We keep or delete articles based on what's already true today, not based on WP:CRYSTAL predictions about how much more notable the person might become in the future. The sources which actually count as reliable source media coverage here aren't about Indygo Arscott, but merely mention their name in the process of being about something else, which is not how you source the notability of an activist. And it's also necessary to point out that you're the page's creator, and thus not an objective observer of whether the sourcing here is enough or not — it doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment at all, I assure you, but it does need to be stated on the record. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the covetrage of Arscott has not yet risen to the level of showing notability. That may change in the future, but it is not yet the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only incidental coverage. Daask (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Hut 8.5 21:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azam Khan (cricketer, born 1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages per the reason stated, below:

Mohammad Arif (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mohammad Taha (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mushtaq Ahmed Kalhoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable cricketers. Have not played in a match that meets WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete first 3, they all fail NCRIC, no evidence they pass WP:GNG. Spike 'em (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a Mustaq Ahmed, born in Sukkur on cricinfo, but he has the wrong DoB to match the listed Mushtaq Ahmed Kalhoro. The player on cricinfo would pass NCRIC and has no (other) article on here. There is an article about Mushtaq Kalhoro (and Mohammad Taha) on Karachi Kings website but it makes no mention of him playing first class cricket, so I think it unlikely they are the same person. Spike 'em (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, if it is decided they are different players, then Delete Mustaq Ahmed Kalhoro too, as he fails NCRIC and does not have enough WP:RS / WP:SECONDARY coverage to pass WP:GNG. Spike 'em (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spike. I too spotted that Mushtaq Ahmed has a profile on CI (with FC matches), but I'm not able to verify if it's one and the same. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted some text / reference on the Mohammad Taha article, as it was for a different (Indian) player with the same name.Spike 'em (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the first 3, and the fourth one unless they're found to be the same player. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there are four Mohammad Arif's which pass NCRIC, Mohammad Arif (cricketer, born 1960) 1, Mohammad Arif (cricketer, born 1963), 2, Mohammad Arif (cricketer, born 1941) 3, and Mohammad Arif (Peshawar cricketer) 4, should anyone wish to invent Mohammad Arif (disabiguation). It seems that the first two may have been confused with each other as they both share the same team details although not the same biographical details. Similarly, there are five Azam Khans which pass NCRIC aside from the Test player - these are Azam Khan (cricketer, born 1964) 1, Azam Khan (cricketer, born 1983) 2, Azam Khan (cricketer, born 1952) 3, Azam Khan (Lahore Division cricketer) 4, and Azam Khan (cricketer, born 1987) 5. I hope I've got all of those right, it's late! Bobo. 23:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly does not pass our notability guide for cricketeers. That said, I think it is clearly time we tighten that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to bring that up given this situation. This is a clear case of brightline notability standards. And once again I ask, how? Funny how people only finish that thought halfway through without being willing to suggest new universally applicable brightline requirements. "A whole season" is unenforceable. "A few" is woolly and pointless. Wanna suggest two, five, ten, one hundred? This isn't the place to be suggesting new brightline criteria. It's been 14 years. Give it a go. In the appropriate place(s). Bobo. 09:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - simply waste of time, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of subjects meeting WP:GNG, let alone the very generous subject-specific notability guideline. Hack (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the first three certainly. Mushtaq Ahmed Kalhoro is also a likely delete for now - I can find just the article that's at the foot of the article for now and nothing else. There is an argument that this player is likely to be notable on the grounds that non-English language sources are very likely to exist along the same lines. On the grounds that there's just the one article I can find, that's not the multiple, independent, in depth sources required by WP:GNG so I think I tend towards delete for him as well - although I would be happy with the article being kept if someone can demonstrate the likelihood of non-English language sources. The same argument has certainly been used to keep articles in the past. The others I find nothing verifiable to demonstrate that they come close to meeting GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I also made efforts to find sources, and if it's this hard, I don't think they're worth it. Daask (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CardLife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable video game. I'm not seeing significant coverage as of yet. Strikerforce^Talk 16:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yup, there is a distinct lack of coverage. --Izno (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This was left on my talk page, verbatim. I submit it for others to review in this context. --Izno (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Izno, I have added some new content to the CardLife page in relation to your feedback. The CardLife Page now features information about its creators Freejam Games. I've also added a new Reception category which shows that CardLife has had over 5 million views from prominent YouTube channels with a big following like PaulSoaresJnr (1.5 million subscribers), GrayStillPlays (663k subscribers) and others. I believe this will be enough for you to be satisfied that CardLife is notable enough to be featured on Wikipedia, but I obviously understand if you disagree. Thanks for taking a look and moderating the page. It is very early for CardLife in terms of press coverage, but on YouTube it's already a notable game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gribb85 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • The same comment was left on my talk page. Strikerforce^Talk 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but I expect recreation per WP:TOOSOON Daask (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom for failing WP:NGAME. YouTube video subscribers do not contribute notability. Ifnord (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DomainTools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources found to verify notability Finnishela (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's tons of press releases and other examples of trivial coverage such as announcements of reports, participation in events, new product announcements, acquisitions, and quotations of company experts etc. Not a single independent, quality source whose primary topic is DomainTools. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This reference from morganlinton provides a good account on the *products*. I believe if this article was about the *products* and not the company/organization, it would pass GNG. The question is, does this article provide an adequate starting point or should it be scrapped? In my opinion, it could easily be started over with no loss of info. What do others think? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that amount to more than two sentences of information? Why not redirect to WHOIS and write two sentences there? We don't always have to create a separate article on a topic, just because we can. If the DomainTools content in WHOIS ever expanded to more than one paragraph, then we could spawn a new article at that time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, at this time I can't see how this would be enough to support a whole article. Finnishela (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Company is not even close to notable. I'm not convinced that its products/services are notable either, but agree with others above that it can be developed at WHOIS and split off again if there seems to be sufficient content. Daask (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find User:Daask's arguments particularly unpersuasive. He says, I can't find an independent source describing their work at all, yet wants to keep the article. That is clearly in contradiction to WP:V and WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Longfin (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable corporation per WP:NCORP. Only event includes an incident of alleged securities fraud which does not qualify a standalone article for a corporation. Gotitbro (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Although it is quoted on Nasdaq, I also cannot find any analyst reports discussing this company in depth. On that basis, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no indication that this company is notable for what it does. In fact, I can't find an independent source describing their work at all. However, there is ongoing coverage of this company for its stock value, criminal investigations, and as an exemplar of bitcoin investment bubbles. I expect it will be discussed in historical works on that last point, although that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. You can decide whether this rationale is compelling. Daask (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep – Coverage of company makes it notable per User:Daask. Redditaddict69 15:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. Vanamonde (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk's submarine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Uneeded for its own article, no use in the actual rescue as well as no recorded use. Device was deemed impractical by official as well. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 15:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. Not notable enough for its own article, could be part of another. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's emerging consensus both at Elon Musk and Tham Luang cave rescue that the amount of detail provided by all the available reliable sources has too much WP:WEIGHT for either article. A WP:SPLIT makes more sense in these conditions. Diego (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was originally thinking merge, but I believe it has more than enough coverage to satisfy the main branch of notability. Then it has plenty of content to warrant a CONTENTFORK. Coverage also extended on long enough to satisfy WP:SUSTAINED - Vox and Hackaday just to give a couple (there's plenty if you do a time-focused search). The sub was a sufficiently big part of the event, regardless of actual lack of usage, to achieve notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:WHENSPLIT. I started the article mainly with content that had been removed from Tham Luang cave rescue for being too detailed for that article, and because there were too many sources covering the development of this technological implement with a level of detail that was notable and in-depth, but not directly related to the rescue. There have been many articles dedicated both to the technological aspects of the device and its viability as submarine rescue equipment, as well as about the incident with its promoter and its angle as a publicity stunt, which could be used to further expand the topic with details gathered from independent secondary analysis. (Also, since when "it's not in use" has been a criterion for determining whether a topic is notable?) Diego (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the said submarine had no use and no foreseen need shows that the topic would not pass WP:SUSTAINED. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability".⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the length of time needed for sustained to apply is always one for dispute, I feel the coverage indicated (and available) is sufficient to show it was a brief news flurry. It doesn't have to be a long running coverage subject, just not brief. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When news media are dedicating feature-length analysis pieces one month after the incident, that is not a short burst. Diego (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an short opinion piece surrounding Musk's behavior, not necessarily the submarine. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 13:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty more mentioning the submarine where this one came from during the last week, you just need to look; this shows that its coverage in media was not just a brief burst never to be mentioned again, but that it has gained their sustained attention. Anyway, Musk's behavior regarding the submarine is part of the topic of this article. Diego (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of those articles barely mention the submarine. Also, in all of them, the submarine is not nearly the main focus. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 14:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Notability is about having enough independent content to write an article for a topic in a neutral way, and I believe this article is proof that press coverage satisfies that criterion. Diego (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now; editorially, it's a useful article-split and it's unclear whether it will be the subject of lasting coverage at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Diego MoyaHypercube. It's fun to laugh at Musk, but that's not what Wikipedia is for, and the whole submarine incident seems more like one episode in the slow decline of a living figure rather than a notable object in and of itself. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Already overwhelms the Elon Musk article as a section. This insignificant event has zero WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. wumbolo ^^^ 08:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is from yesterday. Diego (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Diego Moya: one sentence plus one quote? wumbolo ^^^ 13:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it appears that the sentence boils down to, "after this, I have a lower opinion of Musk," which points back to my previous argument that this is best viewed as an episode in the decline of Elon Musk rather than an independent article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's non-zero for you. And I count four paragraphs retelling the pod design, the "pedo" incident, and four sentences of opinions from Mr Acton (which is from one source, more than one month after the event; it doesn't mean there aren't others).

        Reading the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE policy above, I see it matching "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance" more closely than "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion". Diego (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

        • OK, but there's also a WP:DUE issue at play here. The salacious nature of Musks's tweets shouldn't lead to us over-stating the significance of this event. The only significance of the submarine is that Elon Musk was the person who tried it. If it was some random nobody, it'd never have even made the news. Should we also have an article about Musk and Grimes' feud with Azealia Banks? Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:DUE is for placing content within an article dedicated to a different topic, no? Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, and having an article or not depends on the WP:Notability of the (sub)topic itself, not its relation to other topics. WP:SPLIT recommends having a stand-alone article if there's enough references providing material that is too much weight for the article from which it came from. So WP:DUE would be a good argument for not merging it back into Elon Musk, not to delete Elon Musk's submarine. Diego (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, but that still doesn't speak to any independent notability. How is this object relevant to anything except that it was a Musk PR stunt? I mean it wasn't asked for by anyone, didn't rescue anyone. It's a non-notable object except in that it led to Musk saying unfortunate and slanderous things on Twitter about a person who actually did rescue people. Its notability is only because of Musk. It belongs merged into his article, not as a separate article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. The event is not independently notable of Musk and it does not satisfy WP:SUSTAINED. There is consensus at Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue#Survey that the submarine was a minor event compared to the entire rescue; devoting an entire article to it would be undue. A similar example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Kunan, which was closed in favour of a merge. In this case, I suggest merging it to Elon Musk because the submarine and subsequent tweets attracted attention primarily because of Musk. This is a minor social media incident which got blown over and then coverage gradually decreases. Given our BLP policies which advise against devoting too much space to minor events, I think a couple of sentences in Elon Musk should be good enough to cover it.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The amount of BLP content is similar to that already placed at Elon Musk. The rest of the article is not related to BLP; they are technical descriptions about the device and its viability, which satisfy WP:Notability, as it received attention on its own. Those wouldn't fit at Musk's article, yet are due weight for an article about the submarine itself. Diego (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are the proposed technical capabilities of a billionaire's failed PR stunt relevant independent of the billionaire?Simonm223 (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need it to be independent, we need it to be "notable" on its own, i.e. written in detail by independent reliable sources. Then we can write a WP:SUMMARY section in Musk's page, and a more detailed stand-alone article. Why would we want to have only the first, and lose some part of the reliably sourced descriptive content that is already written, when there's room to have both? Diego (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the crux. Notability is only there vis its position as a PR stunt of Elon Musk. It's all inherited. There's nothing to this story except a stupid twitter feud that a rich jerk decided to engage in and a length of tube.Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer this question: if a reader thought "I want to check Wikipedia to learn what happened with that Musk submarine, how it was made, and whether it could have really worked" (all of these, things that the media have cared about), where would you send them, and how much information they would get? I mean, without having to check the linked references to read the whole articles by themselves. Diego (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That question doesn't speak to WP:GNG which is what concerns us here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for being harsh, but are you saying that you're more concerned with following guidelines than providing information to readers? My read of the GNG is that, if there's enough information to write a detailed and neutral short article, you have passed it, because GNG basically asks "is there enough content to write a short, detailed, neutral article?" Diego (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's undue coverage of an irrelevant PR stunt with no independent notability from the person who proposed it. Answer this question, if Julie Payette had proposed making a submarine in these circumstances, would anybody care? And yet, she's if anything far more qualified for this sort of work than everybody's favourite battery hype man. The only relevance of this object is the person who proposed it. It's not independently notable. It doesn't have significant sustained coverage and a year from now, Elon Musk will be the only person who cares about it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, would have all the press covered it in depth for a week and still mention it one month later as an example every time they talk about her erratic behavior? Because that has totally happened with Musk. Also, you really should explain how the WP:DUE policy and WP:NOTINHERITED essay apply to having a stand-alone article, because I don't see anything in them about a topic that has GNG-level sourcing to it. DUE in particular seems to warn against the merge to the Musk article that you propose. Diego (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, I've said my piece, and barring any new information I am not changing my !vote which I believe to be justified by policy. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, but I think you seem to confound "it's covered with undue weight within another subject" and "it's not important". Those are different things, and only the first is policy. Diego (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into the main article, per arguments by Diego Moya et al. I can't add much more. It's undue weight right now, and of minor importance, yet would add context and citations to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
• Merge - Not sure why this needs a seperate article, No notability to warrant a seperate article. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First off, I can imagine this article being discussed for several reasons, namely 1) the behavior of wealthy benefactors like Musk, 2) time-constrained prototyping and manufacturing, 3) rescue attempts. Multiple reasons of interest makes a separate article more viable in my opinion, apart from any guidelines. Daask (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Having an entire article on this topic seems very much like Wikipedia:Recentism. If there's still significant news coverage a year from now, I'll certainly reconsider! Λυδαcιτγ 03:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an absurdly high bar to cover - 1 month is usually viewed as more than sufficient in these AfDs as regards LASTING and RECENTISM. If that bar was required to be met on top of any other notability requirements, almost no events, criminals, olympic athletes etc would warrant coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wheeling Jesuit University. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo largely based on social media and the own website. Most other hits I found were of the type "we have an event" or "mrs/mr X is working here". Part of Wheeling Jesuit University with no independent notability. The Banner talk 15:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Wheeling Jesuit University not notable enough for an article, but enough third party sources have mentioned it in relation to the University to pass WP:NOTEWORTHY. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect per above.96.127.243.251 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect--NOTPROMO.∯WBG^converse 13:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of chess variants. This seems to be the clear consensus. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy (chess variant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Mentioned in a specialist encylopedia for chess variants, but no other sources it seems. Does not pass the WP:GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia (a general encylopedia). It's not viable for every one of the thousands of entries in The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants to be given an independent article. Note that The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants are effectively editions 1 and 2 of the same publication. It can be found online at [1]. Troy is on page 206. Suggest redirection to List of chess variants rather than actual deletion. LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess was redirected to List of chess variants despite having a wider base of sources. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of chess variants along with any other chess variant that is mentioned in Pritchard and nowhere else. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of chess variants as per above arguments. I felt that the 3-check article should have remained, but this doesn't have anywhere near sufficient coverage to be independently notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would consider either redirection or deletion. I have seen List articles in which each item must be notable enough for its own article; if List of chess variants is such a list, then redirection would not be logical in cases like this, and deletion would be appropriate. On the other hand, looking at WP:CSC, I note with amusement that some lists exist because "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". One can imagine List of chess variants being such a list, in which case redirection might be appropriate. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  In general, we add a requirement that each item must be notable enough for its own article when the list grows without limit otherwise. Example: List of cartoonists could otherwise contain many thousands of entries. When the list has innate limits to how many items can be added we often use the list as a place to cover items that are not notable enough for an article. Example: List of 7400-series integrated circuits is self-limiting; chip manufacturers aren't making chips with new 74xx numbers, jusr cheaper/faster/etc. versions of old ones. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This should probably be discussed at Talk:List of chess variants. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Limiting the growth of the list is indeed a practical necessity. But looking at the earlier decision on Three-Check Chess, it seems like putting it on the list was also a practical decision, even though it fell short of what we consider notability, because it has its own active playing community. So, I stand corrected.

  For this variant (Troy), I recommend deletion. But I would not be disappointed if it were first redirected to the list, and then further discussion could take place, if warranted, on the talk page of the list. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Reading the article, it looks like there are numerous non-notable (or at least, they don't have articles) variants given. It seems reasonable that it could be redirected, but if the "local" experts have a consensus and a reason not to, then delete would obviously be the option. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to list of chess variants, as it appears in an RS as a chess variant. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Korean drama television series in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Since television shows from any country can be broadcast in any other country, this is not a thing it's valuable or useful for an encyclopedia to maintain a list of — there are approximately 180 countries in the world whose television channels both produce their own television series and purchase rebroadcast rights to television series from other countries, giving us the duty to create and maintain around 32,000 such lists, for every possible combination of originating and purchasing country, if this were a thing we did. This is not useful or encyclopedic content, and Korean series airing in Pakistan don't occupy some unique sphere of special notability unmatched by any other combination of countries. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete. Can't see how this could pass WP:LISTN, overseas shows dubbed for a particular audience. Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A list of this sort needs to be supported by WP:RS coverage of the subject-matter of the list as such. All that I could find was this blog (which clearly isn't WP:RS). Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete given the above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2. (non-admin closure) Daask (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Revuelta (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to meet WP:GNG. I tried searching and couldn't find a mention of it in the first few pages of a google search. I tried searching "La Revuelta" in es.wiki, with no mention of it there either. This article could arguably be deleted based on WP:A3 and WP:V, as the 2 sentence lead has 3 pieces of information which none can be verified if correct. The rest of the article is blanked sections (including an empty pseudo-infobox). Also please note, that the only External link there, is for the Gran Hermano site, which does not have an entry for this, which seems more of a copy/paste from other articles than an actual validated source. Also note that the article has been like this since it was created in 2012 with 1 edit by SecretStoryStyle and has never been edited by anyone else, except for general wiki maintenance - tagging and link and category fixes. Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible redirect to Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2; @Gonnym:, is that the same as this? It's titled as "Gran Hermano 12+1: La Re-vuelta" in the main Gran Hermano article. Ping me back to confirm whether this is the case. Nate • (chatter) 17:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf:To be honest, I have no idea. This article has almost no information that I can use to verify. At best I can say that it has the same host and a somewhat similar name. If I had to guess, I'd say it probably is. --Gonnym (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2 -- @Mrschimpf:@Gonnym: I actually had to research this a bit and check the Spanish Wikipedia article Gran Hermano: La Re-Vuelta [es] as well. Both articles in question are about the same series Gran Hermano 12+1: La Re-vuelta where the name is often shorten to La Re-vuelta or GH 12+1: La Re-vuelta in the Spanish press. [2][3] It is sometimes referred to as Gran Hermano: La Re-vuelta.[4] La Revuelta (season 1) and Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2 are both about the same spin-off of the Spanish adaptation of Big Brother which sees 16 participants (known as Housemates) that previously competed in the thirteenth season of the program return for another chance at winning a cash prize. It uses a modified format than the main series and other Gran Hermano related spin-offs.[5][6][7] All the information of La Revuelta (season 1) is already contained in Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2 and there would be no loss to en-Wiki if La Revuelta (season 1) is deleted or redirected to Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2. (Note: All links about this program I have included here are in Spanish.) ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

second nom, still doesn't meet notability and has seen no improvement since the first nom Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; just a directory listing for a nn company. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Distinguishing this firm from both the similarly-named US firm and the BNP investment entity, I am seeing confirmation that it is a firm going about its business, such as the brief mention in relation to a partnership with Made SA in this 2018 "La Tribune" article, but without the necessary coverage to show that the firm is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SoWhy 19:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a writer, who doesn't have a strong claim of notability under WP:AUTHOR or particularly strong reliable source coverage to carry a WP:GNG pass. He's the bylined creator, not the subject, of 10 of the 12 footnotes, and one more is his "our contributors" note in the general episode preview of one of the first ten — but, as always, writers do not get over our notability standards by being the creators of coverage about other things, they get over our notability standards by being the subject of coverage written by other people. Which means the only source here that isn't a complete non-starter in terms of establishing his notability is #4, "Montreal is in my DNA" — but that piece of coverage is from the same media outlet that hired him for the closest thing to an actual notability claim here, which means it isn't independent of him for the purposes of helping him get over GNG. All of which means that nothing here is enough to deem him notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while I did not approve this page through AfC I did comment "My gut says he is notable. He is certainly prolific and funded by the CBC is impressive. Anything that can be added where other people talk about him and his work would be very helpful to establish notability" This is just a new stub and can be expanded. There are many pages in AfC that are far more worthy of deletion then this page. Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not demonstrated by how prolific a person is, it's demonstrated by how much attention he does or doesn't receive as the subject of coverage, and an individual CBC station in a media market is not the same thing as the national network. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I kept this during a round of G13 tagging. Pinging User:Chetsford as the one who accepted the draft. -- » Shadowowl | talk 18:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep (ed updated below) For full disclosure, I passed this through AfC. That said, when I passed it I did feel it was right on the edge, so I can appreciate the position of the Delete !votes. I ultimately felt it was worthy of mainspace under criteria 1 (award of significance or multiple nominations for significant awards) for WP:ANYBIO on the basis of (a) being the CBC Montreal / Quebec Writers' Federation writer in residence, and, (b) being on the CBC national 2017 non-fiction longlist [8] in combination with the Montreal International Poetry Prize longlist [9]. While the former ("a") is not exactly the Pulitzer Prize or the Man Booker Award, we seem to accept penultimate regional literary awards as being of significance based on the fact that many of the state poet laureates are notable only for being a state poet laureate. That said, I am aware this veers sharply into the realm of WP:OTHERTHINGS, on which basis I'm giving this only a weak keep (in fact, the weakest keep). Chetsford (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete probably just WP:TOOSOON. this writer is widely published, but we need SECONDARY sources that are about his work, or his life. Or a major prize.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No apparent significant critical reviews of his work. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, prior comments and lack of notable examples of his work. Redditaddict_6_9 02:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Borderline... but we shouldn't be keeping borderline BLP . Agree this may be case of WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammarpad (talk • contribs) 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per Chetsford. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please look at WP:AUTHOR. What we look for are things like book reviews, prizes, and INDEPTH coverage of the writer or her/his work. Levy has none of this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral While I believed the CBC Montreal / Quebec Writers' Federation writer in residence and the CBC longlist qualified under NAUTHOR's inherent notability for multiple prizes, in reading the above discussion, and E.M.Gregory's comments, I am no longer convinced and am refactoring my !vote from Weak Keep to Neutral. Chetsford (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the article is entirely PRIMARY sourced. Mostly sourced to short stories by Levy. There are also 2 segments wher ethe CBC "takes a listen to home recordings" and a Levy family recording is includes, plus "'Montreal is in my DNA': Meet Joshua Levy," introducing him as this year's writer-in-residence. We need SECONDARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe Chetsford felt badgered into changing their vote. The subject accomplished a notable award (writer in residence at the CBC, Canada's national TV/radio network), has had their works reviewed, and certainly meets WP:GNG at the very least. Ifnord (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the CBC is a national network, Levy was not selected by the CBC Nationa,. He was selected by CBC Quebec. The 2017 CBC/QWF's 2017 writer-in-residence was Sarah Lolley [10]. As for reviews, I have found no reviews of his work. Published reviews are precisely the sort of thing that does help pass WP:AUTHOR. User:Ifnord, if you have found reviews, please bring to them to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with similar thoughts to Ammarpad Daask (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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