< 2 February	4 February >

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Amy Everett[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:BIO1E (the article is written about the individual, not the event as the title might suggest). Any wide coverage in independent sources is unlikely to be SUSTAINED. Kb.au (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. This one is difficult but I believe that WP:ONEEVENT applies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for now: The aftermath is broad enough that NOTNEWS doesn't apply and EVENTCRIT#2 applies (national and limited international coverage, independent memorial activities, speech by the PM, subsequent analysis, etc), and appears to be ongoing. There's the likelihood that the issue of cyberbullying will be raised at COAG next week (in which case expect further related stories on Feb 10-11), and probably subsequent legislative changes referencing Everett's death. We're in the middle of things, but I think SUSTAINED will be more likely than not. BIO1E is not an argument for zero articles, but for fewer and more general articles, and at the moment there's no better place for this article (though perhaps long term the Dolly's Dream Foundation may reach a level of notability sufficient to be able to fairly retarget the article and/or this may be best redirected to a Background section of a related article). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another copy and paste from John Lambert. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor a memorial nor a repository of every local suicide due to unfortunate external factors. This is not sufficiently encyclopedic or notable. SunChaser (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tragic topic, and I really feel for her family. However, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a stand-alone article. Given that the incident attracted considerable coverage, I'd suggest adding this to the List of suicides that have been attributed to bullying article. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 10 February 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. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 01:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libtard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A pejorative term that defines WP:NOT#DICT - #3 Usage, slang, or idiom guides ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - "libtard" is already a Wiktionary definition. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to pass the GNG based off the coverage of the word, and discussion about whether or not it is offensive. The idea that a word cannot be in Wikipedia defies WP:WORDISSUBJECT, and as the rationale does not mention Notability I am unsure whether the nom has done a Before. FTR I remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (4th nomination) as an AFD for an offensive political-based word. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So how long does an article have to be to be more than "just a dic entry" L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^{FYI, the Republican pejoratives were deleted as well. If I knew how to dig up those old AfDs, I'd provide the links. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, as it fails to claim any notability. It's an open and shut fail of WP:NOTDIC as it fails to go beyond a simple definition of the term and its usage. Fails WP:WORDISSUBJECT because it fails to include any encyclopedic content.GliderMaven (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY--Rusf10 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. There's nothing here beyond a dictionary entry. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it's just a dictionary entry with some references added to make it seem like a topic worthy of an article. Nufy7 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong soft redirect to Wiktionary. WP:SOFTSISP. Only four articles link here, but this article has been repeatedly recreated. Ꞷ umbolo 21:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or soft redirect per Nufy7. There are many other words suffixed with -tard (see Wiktionary:Category:English words suffixed with -tard), and this one is not particularly notable. 9³ 20:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term has seen enough of a popular usage today to deem it notable enough for Wikipedia's standards in my honest opinion. It is on Wiktionary, on the Oxford Dictionaries website, is used frequently on social media and now on actual media, such as various news outlets, both TV, internet, actual printed papers etc. I vote keep. --Luka1184 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good arguments for including it in a dictionary. --Michig (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The word is more suited for a dictionary database than the encyclopedic equivalent. Good coverage and (at least) semi-widespread usage, but having it's own Wikipedia article? Nah, not yet. Especially not one as stubby as the current article. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:34, 10 February 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. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 01:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph College of Bulacan[edit]

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

Delete: non notable school. Google search uncovered nothing notable nor even any notable alumni. Quis separabit? 01:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding tertiary institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the RfC that Necrothesp so delightful chooses to ignore. And so clearly states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a relevant argument. The Banner talk 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry? Did the RfC suddenly mutate from a discussion about secondary schools to one about tertiary institutions? I hadn't realised that it was in fact secretly about all educational institutions! Maybe you'd care to explain to all of us where it says this? Because my reading is that it refers to secondary schools only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colleges and universities are generally notable. The RfC cited only applies to secondary institutions, not tertiary ones. Smartyllama (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cites no third-party sources = fails WP:V and WP:N. Colleges are no exception to verifiability. Sandstein 07:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly doesn't fail WP:V: it's listed on a government website and I can see it right there on Google streetview, so I disagree that its existence can not verified.--Pontificalibus 09:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the RfC was only about secondary schools. Degree granting institutions, even more so than secondary schools, are all but guaranteed to meet the GNG, which means per WP:NPOSSIBLE, we keep them. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep government sources and past consensus to keep tertiary institutions Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources indicate that this is in any way notable. The info that is in the article isn't even on the school's web site. I'm also not sure that this is just a college. The students in these photos look awfully young. [[1]] Also, the body of the article seems to be a cut and paste from somewhere - so maybe COPYVIO.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We essentially always do keep colleges, as a plain statement of fact. We treat them as if they were all notable. The RfC on schooloutcomes did not even discus colleges or other tertiary institutions, so I do not know why people are citing it. Using it here is misrepresenting it--the words tertiary does not appear, and the word college, only in the context that information about schools can be found in college libraries. (That said, the article needs proper expansion, now that the promotionalism has been removed). DGG ( talk ) 11:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DGG explains it best, where The Banner continues to falsely represent the 'non'-consensus of the RfC he frequently cites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant, due to lack of content-related arguments, you just attack the messenger. Very, very old trick. The Banner talk 00:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By now I hope it is clear that Kudpung and I and others are rejecting not you, but your arguments. Your arguments limit the question of notability to the GNG, but at WP we make our own rules, and can make whatever exceptions to the notability guideline will benefit the encyclopedia , not just for individual articles, but for subjects. WP is better off if we make an exception to the GNG in this topic area--in order to avoid endless disagreements with each other, and the consequent tendency to get over-personal. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said here, some people who are eager to delete all school articles are now so blind that any school AfD they will summarily !vote delete without even reading the article to know what kind of school they are actually dealing with whether it is the secondary school or not. It is general consensus (whether written sonewhere or not) that all higher institutions that awards degrees are generally notable. Dvelopment of particular varsity/college article is proportional to number of editors interested and able to find sources for it.–Ammarpad (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:12, 10 February 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. Nakon 04:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan C Simpson[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable lobbyist who is not covered significantly in independent sources and doesn't meet the GNG. All the included references are to primary, closely connected sources (memos of meetings, etc) and I can't find significant coverage elsewhere. Kb.au (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. No apparent notability and does not seem to pass either GNG or NSPORT (as team manager), although it's hard to tell as the article is so godawfully written. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and no real reliable source in the article. NZFC^(talk) 05:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Strictly, AfD is the wrong venue for this; the deletion of draft articles are discussed at WP:MfD. However, as User:In Memoriam A.H.H. is the sole author of the draft page and is here requesting deletion, I have speedy deleted it per CSD G7. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:A Short Vision[edit]

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

Draft completed and now implemented into the article, so not needed anymore. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:54, 3 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Mutter[edit]

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

Looks like the person doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for personal notability. Did a quick check on him at Google News - 0 mentions. The sources in the article are of poor quality. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:ARTIST. There is a claim that the subject won an award, which I've been unable to verify. Mduvekot (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All we've got are passing mentions in a reliable source or two and several trivial primary sources. Woodroar (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Was created by the subject. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:15, 10 February 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. Nakon 04:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Megan McGill[edit]

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

Dosnt have significant roles or WP:SIGCOV - Fails WP:NACTOR, may be WP:TOOSOON CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She was cast in a series a couple of years ago and doesn't appear to have done much before or since according to imdb, 2 refs in the article, 1 ok, 1 youtube. She has a common name which is hard to search but I don't think there is much to be found. Szzuk (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB is not a reliable source, and one source is never enough to pass GNG. The latter fact is ignored by many of the defenders of our overly large number of shallow articles on non-notable actors, but that is another story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to have had no major roles and does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. There is one newspaper source included in the article which suggests she was involved in a 3-month period of filming for a children's TV series after no formal acting training. A quick search did not uncover other coverage in reliable sources. Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:03, 9 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Om Srivastava[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There are very little references for the claims made in the article including Knights Hospitaller and being a scientist. A google search on the person turns up nothing expect a few LinkedIn style profiles. Similar for any mention in any news. A google scholar search turns up a single book published called "Interactive TV Technology and Markets". The article seems to be written in as a promotional one in my opinion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether or not Srivastava is a scientist has as much to do with how that term is defined as anything else, but he clearly is not a notable academic, and his business activities also do not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self promotion with no notability.--Rpclod (talk) 22:53, 3 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Whiteside (photographer)[edit]

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

Minor photographer--no work in major museums, no substantial critical discussion. Besides magazine advertisements, published only 1 book, which is not even in WorldCat DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I can't find any significant coverage about Whiteside himself, in Highbeam, GeneralOneFile, Google. Passing mention, trivial coverage here and there, plenty of examples of his work about notable people and in notable publications, but that is not a reason for a separate article about Whiteside. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here. Articles and photo essays about and by him about including in notable magazines[2] and mentions in industry biographies [3]. He is not notable because of his connections he is notable for his large body of work and recognition in print. Just because he doesn't give many interviews does not make his work and him less notable. Found5dollar (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a book and an exhibit are not enough to establish WP:NARTIST notability.--Rpclod (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:30, 4 February 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. Nakon 04:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gaertner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A working actor, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG, and he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Was declined several times at AfC before the editor simply moved it into mainspace without reference improvement after the last decline. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC) The actor works mostly in Chinese media films. look for example at https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%80%81%E8%A1%A8%EF%BC%8C%E7%95%A2%E6%A5%AD%E5%96%87%EF%BC%81 his name appears not linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BettyKong (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC) — BettyKong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR as the roles are all minor & significant RS coverage not found. Non notable as an entrepreneur either. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 3 February 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. —CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 01:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Kings[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG nothing of note found in a before search. Tagged as not being sourced in august 2017 nothing added since. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (with a likely Delete !vote): Having also done a WP:BEFORE as the tagger in August 2017, I had a hard time finding anything more than routine mentions (primarily from coverage of the Vermont Bucks-based coverage in the Burlington Free Press). Per NORG, I find it concerning that even their local newspaper did not cover this team, even with hosting the championship game in their so-called professional league. I use so-called because many players from this league claim to have never gotten their paychecks last season, and as of now only two teams from the previous season might still exist for the 2018 season (this and the Glens Falls Gladiators). There has been virtually no coverage for the two existing teams, from themselves or in the media, putting their status further in doubt. I know there tends to be a "presumed notability" for professional sports teams that actually played, but this one certainly reeks of non-notability right now. Yosemiter (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Can-Am Indoor Football League as a plausible search term. Not enough coverage of the team itself, but send the reader someplace they can find the info they're looking for. Smartyllama (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartyllama: Per WP:XY, they are currently announced as members of the American Arena League as well. So unless the Can-Am article is also merged into the AAL (which I suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arena Pro Football), then a redirect is not the best outcome per two equally logical search parameters. Yosemiter (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and just because a reader is looking for a particular subject doesn't mean that there has to be a redirect. That's what search engines like Google are there for. When I look for a subject the first thing I do is a Google search and if I see a WP I check that out first but if I get redirected too often to a page that is not specifically about my subject then the whole point of an encyclopedia is lost. (I am presuming that redirects are indexed) Dom from Paris (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a google news search provides a couple of trivial mentions and that's it. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raisingkids.co.uk[edit]

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

Nothing significant. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged this as G12 because the initial version of the page was blatantly copied from raisingkids.co.uk's creator's personal website back in 2010, and has only been marginally adjusted since then.--Pontificalibus 18:31, 3 February 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. Nakon 04:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chanakya Kyatham[edit]

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

Autobiography clearly fails GNG. BEFORE search finds no substantial coverage in RS. Chetsford (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable computer industry person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete utterly non-notable biospam with no indication of importance whatsoever. Can we just call snow? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonehexagon (talk • contribs) 23:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Promo and fails GNG. MT Train^Discuss 10:59, 8 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winecommune.com[edit]

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

Very poor article that was never expanded or linked anywhere in its 10+ years of existence. Notability issues have been highlighted since 2015. Also the website closed in 2016. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 16:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- should have been deleted upon its creation. Being on a top 10 online wine shop list is certainly not a grounds for notability without more. Non-notable, and now extinct. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 10 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kohinoor Group[edit]

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

There are two problems with this page. First, it does not satisfy corporate notability, because neither this page nor a Google search turns up significant third-party coverage of the company. Second, it reads promotionally, like a press release. The second could be taken care of by not leaving much remaining text, and would still leave a notability issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverages are all press releases and classifieds. Also doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. MT Train^Discuss 03:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 5 February 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hester[edit]

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

A blog post and an article by the subject do not suffice to establish notability for this (retired, BTW) professor of journalism. Mduvekot (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. Article has been substantially improved. Mduvekot (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully ask that the AfD be withdrawn. Hester meets criteria 5 and 6 of the academic guideline. "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." FloridaArmy (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw a nomination when I'm wrong, but does "head of the University of Georgia's Grady College's newspaper and magazine department" meet those two citeria? WP:NACADEMICS specifically mentions that "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone." Perhaps he meets criterion #5, since all the current departments heads at Grady College appear to hold a named chair appointment. Can we find out which one Helder held? Mduvekot (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was "Journalism Department chair and director of the Cox International Center for Mass Communication Training and Research", which he also founded. The article is a work in progress and some of the details and organization need improvement. But I believe his meeting notability guidelines is pretty well clear cut and established at this point although it may not have been at the time of the nom, based on the state of the article at that time. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:39, 3 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maarten Baas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Insufficient coverage. Ref are all primary and too own work. scope_creep (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSPAM and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sollewitt/Archive; this is likely undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 15:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not buying the UPE argument. Who would have commissioned this article? I think it's pretty obvious that there has been an attempt on behalf of Carpenters Workshop Gallery by sockpuppets of Sollewitt, in this case Virgisophi85, to insert links to Carpenters Workshop Gallery wherever possible in order to promote that gallery. That is not a reason to delete this article as promotional. It's a third party that is promoting itself. The subject himself has no motive. Baas has received sufficient coverage in the press, including the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/style/05iht-design6.3395890.html?mtrref=undefined&gwh=A697A66B7D307144C7B8F5977305A5B4&gwt=pay Slow down, please. The Dutch version of the article, which is somewhat out of date, would also have been a target, and it clearly isn't. FWIW, I just saw one of his "smoke" pieces in the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Fix the article. Mduvekot (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC) F[reply]
Keep per Mduvekot. Article can be further improved, but I see no immediate reason to delete it. – Editør (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sympathetic to the arguments, but there is not a lot of coverage per WP:SIGCOV. The New York Time entry isn't WP:RS, it is a subdomain that anybody and their granny can pay to write into, i.e. it is an affiliate site. I think the smoke pieces, which are weird and beautiful, are where the notabilties are, if it is likely, but there is not the coverage nor the notabilty at the moment to support an article. scope_creep (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be plenty of significant coverage in Dutch national newspapers such as [4] [5] [6]. He also won the Designer of the Year award at Design Miami in 2009 [7]. – Editør (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article was written by Alice Rawsthorn, a renowned design critic and regular contributor to the international edition of The New York Times, as well as other publications. The suggestion that she is a pen for hire is baseless. The article should definitely count as in-depth coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. --Lambiam 22:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, and even more so if you include the Dutch sources found by Editør. --Lambiam 18:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article's improvements, which sufficiently demonstrate notability of the subject. Dutch wiki article is also suggestive of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 3 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Licorize[edit]

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

Nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:NWEB. Being on the "Smashing Magazine 2010 list of 50 Powerful Time-Savers For Web Designers" strongly suggests "non-notable" and "too soon" (or maybe never). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 7 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GiveALink.org[edit]

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

Nothing significant. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Web site has discontinued and turned into something else. Obviously not notable enough to keep, and not notable enough to have listed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acnetj (talk • contribs) 03:01, 5 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GotChosen[edit]

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

Nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability issue (lack of secondary sources). M A A Z T A L K 15:07, 5 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noella Roos[edit]

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

I can't find enough substantial references about Roos to justify a GNG pass, and I don't think she meets any of the NARTIST criteria either. Checked Google, GBooks, GNews, and JSTOR and all I came up with was this book. While sort of substantial, it can't hold up the entire article on its own.

Both the Welsh and Dutch Wikipedias have articles, but no references to poach. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does bot meet guidelines for notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Large article is basically all OR and sources are almost all web stuff. Article seems to be PROMO. Agricola44 (talk) 13:25, 8 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sayidaty Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable online market. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. — Za wl 14:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 12:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent company. WP:PRESERVE FloridaArmy (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into and redirect to parent. Not notable on its own.--Rpclod (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Saudi Research and Marketing Group is not the parent company; it's the parent company of a parent company (Saudi Research and Publishing Company) of the subject. The parent company is not notable itself and only gets a passing mention here: Saudi_Research_and_Marketing_Group#Subsidiaries,_associates_and_joint_ventures. There's nothing in the current page worth merging; it's WP:DIRECTORY / WP:PROMO only, while significant RS coverage is not found. Such articles is expecially discouraged per WP:NCORP, so deletion is the way to go here. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:52, 10 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen Flesh Cinema[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 12:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An extremely minor, amateur film production company, with absolutely not reliable sources talking about it in any depth. On a related note, the articles on three films listed on this page as being produced by them are equally abysmal, and should probably also be nominated for deletion. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG, no substantial coverage in reliable sources, not even sure it is an official company. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Shenoy[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO. The one source in the article is the only third-party source a Google search came up with. That "top 8" list has three sentences in the blurb on him, and only one says anything about him. Largoplazo (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 of the 4 sources are the subjects own work, so add nothing to notability. The 4th source is a blog, so not a reliable source at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very possibly he is an emerging star. If so, let's wait till he has (verifiably) emerged. -- Hoary (talk) 05:40, 8 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mati Aharoni[edit]

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

non notable. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of name checks are available, but none are in-depth sources.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 5 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicks (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFILMS. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 11:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:54, 5 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nursery Cryme Tour[edit]

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

An indiscriminate collection of tour dates, with a few bits of unsourced or poorly sourced information that can easily go in Genesis (band) or one of the album articles. A7 was declined, but that’s not a high barrier to clear. Also nominating:

I’m not going to nominate later tours as these had more substance and had sources talking about the tour as an actual event. But none of these were significant “tours” per se, they were simply collections of gigs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - lists of locations and set lists is fun fancruft at the band website, but per WP:NTOUR a tour needs to be discussed as an event in its own right. Happenings on a tour, if notable, can be mentioned in the article for the corresponding album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom মাখামাখি (talk) 14:07, 7 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingongoni[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NFILMS. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 10:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 3 February 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. Clearly meets the SNG. As a comment on why soccerway is ok: a reliable source is not necessarily notable as a result, the fact that the article was deleted has nothing to do with its reliability as a source. We haven't deleted Daily Mail conversely even though it is not deemed reliable. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ygor Nogueira[edit]

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

With greatest respect to the subject, senhor Nogueira de Paula apparently has yet to have played a match for the teams listed in this article. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soccerway says Nogueira has played 15 matches for Fluminense in Serie A which is a fully professional league (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues). RRD (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in Brazil's top flight also, meets WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I most strongly question why "Soccerway" is still used as a reference in this and other articles. Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 14:23, 4 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Sikandar Sultan[edit]

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

no in depth coverage in RS. the user who created this BLP has been blocked for socking. Saqib (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 10:48, 3 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Fuentes[edit]

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

I'm having an extremely hard time trying to find good sources for this lady. Can only find this, which is no claim to notability. Every other link on this page is a dead one, and I do not believe that this person is notable. I checked more Swedish sources as well, and couldn't find too much. !dave 10:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from talk page -- !dave

Please delete Nikkita nicks (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not real Nikkita nicks (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. The article is rife with the kind of puffery that usually means that there is no notability there. According to the Swedish WP article her claim to notability is a 16th position in a major music competition, and that doesn't make her notable at English WP. (That article is in pretty poor shape as well, with lots of unsourced fluff and no good sources, so no help there.) I can't find any reliable and/or secondary sources after a good-faith WP:BEFORE search. --bonadea contributions talk 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources are presented to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She does not meet WP:GNG Cait.123 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She goes (went?) by the sobriquet "The Nicole", but that search string yields exactly two additional search hits that are about her: one brief notice from a tabloid about her being taken to hospital just before the music competition mentioned above, and one transcript of a chat session from just after the contest. Enough to show she exists, but not to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 16:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is quite a mess, but AfD is not a clean-up service. She has participated in Melodifestivalen which is the biggest music competition in Sweden and Swedish TV. Has had music singles in Sweden and Russia. Music singles has charted. I think the users above are !voting on article quality rather than notability. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, it is entirely inappropriate for you to put words in others' mouths. You are incorrect in your assessment of why I !voted. My !vote reflects that the subject is not notable and the article should be deleted.--Rpclod (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. BLPs should not be accepted without proper sourcing; pls see WP:NOPAGE. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree no RS means NOPAGE. Agricola44 (talk) 13:24, 8 February 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 08:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tzipi Shavit[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:GNG & WP:MBIO. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. — Za wl 09:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per satisfying GNG. From an internet search in Hebrew, it looks like coverage exists. Article needs much better sourcing, I started with adding two that I found quickly. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please present your findings here. — Za wl 15:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added several references I uncovered directly to the article (see the new references section). I found the sources by searching Google using her name in Hebrew, "ציפי שביט". Thsmi002 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Singer, children star, comedian - with decades of coverage. Back in the 70s-90s she was one of the leading stars in Israel in the category. This really should not have been brought to AfD - a cursory BEFORE (as well as a peek at the Hebrew wiki) would have shown she is clearly notable (as well as primarily a comedian and performer to children (which also led rto singing))Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. English coverage may be weak, but someone nicknamed the "First Lady of Israeli entertainment" by what looks like to me a fairly prominent Israeli source is no doubt notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:00, 7 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James W. LaBelle[edit]

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

nothing that hints at notability, does not pass GNG for academics Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes even close to showing that LaBelle is anywhere near to close to being notable. No indication that his work is at all impactful, and academic point 1 is the only one that we have any clue he could in theory pass.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since he holds a named chair at a major institution of higher education, the Lois L. Rodgers Professorship at Dartmoth, he unambiguously meets criteria #5 listed at WP:NACADEMIC. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5, thanks to Gnome's improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF; an acceptable stub at this point. Does not violate guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 7 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kian Salehi[edit]

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

Failing notability. There is coverage, but all in relation to his role as bitesquad founder, not about the individual. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BiteSquad article. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BiteSquad article. I support the suggestion of FloridaArmy. Wanted to nominate BiteSquad article for the deletion, but found out that it has a lot of press mentions at high-quality media.-- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbarmadillo. I wanted to take some more time to look into BiteSquad and potentially also nominate for deletion. I did not find sufficient editorial coverage. Most of what I did find looks like PR/reproduction from press kits. I do miss proper, independent editorial. If you could share your findings that would be much appreciated. The refs I added the article establish existence, but not notability as they are definitely not independent and fall into the category of "routine company reporting". _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Brockman I didn't look deep into it. From what I remember, there was a Miami Herald article comparing various food-delivery services (editorial, not PR) and Las Vegas Sun coverage. But, yes, there were a lot of press-releases. I used Google News. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw the Miami Herald article earlier on, but I'm not convinced it supports notability. This is just a service review of 7 different food delivery apps without an in-depth write up about the company. I'd see this falling into the "routine coverage" bucket. The Las Vegas Sun piece is a typical "tell us about your company"-thing where PR companies usually hold the pen._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Brockman it is up to you. Being an inclusionist I try to keep as much information as possible on Wikipedia. But if you feel it is not notable, go ahead and nominate it for the deletion. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable entrepreneur and CEO. No poing in merging since BiteSquad is on its way to being deleted. In any case, merging BLP into a company article is almost always a bad idea -- the company may get acquired; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 6 February 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 the weight of the arguments here based on policy is in favour of deletion, with Bearcat having laid out a very strong case for it under our policies and guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kinsey[edit]

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

One-term mayor of Chattanooga, Tenn. No inherent notability for mayors under NPOL and this one does not seem to meet the GNG either. A BEFORE search finds no references outside his single term as mayor. References during his term as mayor are routine. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. I would caution that Kinsey's mayoral term took place from 1997 to 2001, which means a Google search would not be expected to turn up much (or any) coverage — to properly establish whether he passes WP:GNG or not, we would need to dig into archived sources, such as news retrieval databases or microfilms, and/or books. While it's true that there is no automatic notability for all mayors, Chattanooga most certainly is large enough that a properly sourced article about a mayor would be kept — and those sources don't have to extend outside his term, either, but merely have to address his mayoralty more substantively than just "he existed". But "he existed" is admittedly all that's actually present here, and improved sourcing needs to be shown to exist, not just presumed to probably exist, before "notability is determined by the existence of appropriate sources, not necessarily their presence in the existing article" (some editors' favourite choice of tactics to derail an AFD discussion) becomes a valid argument. So if somebody can find the sources to do better than this, then by all means go right ahead — but this isn't cutting it for making a mayor notable enough as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point Bearcat. My BEFORE search included Google News, newspapers.com, Google Books, JSTOR, the website of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, and the special collections database of the University of Tennessee at Chatanooga. However, you are correct that there may be non-digitized paper archives somewhere that establish his notability and I agree that there should be no prejudice for recreation in the future. Chetsford (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability for Kinsey. We need actual sources to show notability for local political figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor of a major metropolitan city with a population of greater than 100,000. Found one story in the Washington Post in 1999 and one in Bizjournal (showing nationalized attention to his role in his attempt to acquire the water utility), there are several mentions of his work as mayor in several books and chapters on public policy development in Chattanooga (found through Google Books) and multiple local articles mentioning his role as an influential developer since his term in office. The only thing I cannot find online appears to be contemporary campaign coverage in the local newspapers that provides more information about the subject's career. That said, what I was able to find was much more that "he existed" and every indication from the coverage I did find is indicative of broad, complete, contemporary coverage as one would to expect of a mayor of a large city. --Enos733 (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mayor of Chattanooga is inherently notable, and Kinsey seems to still be active in high-level policymaking in Tennessee.Kiernanmc (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:POLOUTCOMES says "municipal politicians are not inherently notable" and then says "each case is evaluated on its own individual merits" which usually means making an evidenced case for notability rather than just "because he is." Chattanooga is a small city and isn't even among the 100 largest in the U.S.. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mayor of anywhere is ever "inherently" notable. Mayors, regardless of a city's size, are granted notability only if they're properly sourceable as the subject of significant press coverage that goes beyond just raw tables of election results. Certainly Chattanooga is large enough that this would be kept if it were properly sourced — but the size of the city never, ever exempts a mayor in and of itself from having to be sourced better than this is. And further, an AFD discussion does not represent a permanent ban on his ever being considered notable enough for an article — if this gets deleted, people can still try again in the future if they can find the necessary depth and quality of sources to substance and source him significantly better than this, but we can't keep an article that's this poorly sourced and this substanceless just because you think maybe it might be possible to improve it even though you can't be arsed to actually locate any better sources. Anybody could simply say that about anything, which would mean no article about anything was ever deletable for any reason — the key to making this article keepable is to put in the work needed to show that the required depth and quality of sourcing does exist, not just to speculate that maybe it just possibly might exist somewhere you're not willing to find. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage and consider possible merge to an article on the mayors of this city. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence of enough coverage to make this keepable "per coverage" has been shown? The only sources present in the article that count as reliable source coverage are a 50-word blurb about him and a longer but still short blurb about something else which merely happens to namecheck Kinsey's existence. Every mayor of anywhere could always show that — to deem a mayor notable, we require much more substantive coverage about him, and much more of it, than that — we do not automatically keep every mayor of anywhere just because we can find one or two pieces of cursory verification that he existed. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think the coverage is much more substantial, as there is contemporary coverage in the Washington Post about a controversial issues the subject pushed as well as depth of coverage about his endeavors since his mayoral term (some of which I added into the article). Online sources do not appear to exist for the entirety of the subject's term, however, Chattanooga is a large city of regional prominence, where WP:POLOUTCOMES states the mayor "usually survives AFD." I continue to believe that there is broad contemporary coverage in the Chattanooga Times Free Press and the Chattanoogan. --Enos733 (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL & significant RS coverage not found. Coverage is routine for this level of position and does not amount to WP:SIGCOV as needed for WP:ANYBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 8 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Wilson (comedian)[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this subject - or her comedy or writing - that would meet WP:GNG. Though she has written books, the only coverage of them seems to non-independent or insignificant; there are no reviews of her work that would meet WP:AUTHOR. Searches only turn up hits at places like Wordpress blogs, personal sites, and Amazon listings. I can't find anything to indicate that the INDIEFAB award is notable. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known author, and sources are fairly good, they are not all blogs includes YouTube video which is creditable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment was moved here from above the nomination, to get the discussion in chronological order --bonadea contributions talk 19:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the relevant notability criteria WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ENT, and WP:GNG. The sourcing is either primary or else trivial mentions. The YouTube video is a recording of one of her performances, which doesn't show notability. One of her books has been shortlisted for awards, but those awards don't appear to be notable, and being a finalist (as opposed to winning) an award is almost never a claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 19:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references are independent reliable sources which show that the author is notable as an author.--Rpclod (talk) 14:09, 3 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Coke, 8th Earl of Leicester[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No claim to notability, and no significant coverage in independent sources. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, sites like ThePeerage.com already exist for that purpose. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons given in the previous AFD. If anything his case is stronger now that his father has died and he has taken over the substantive title. Iffy★Chat -- 08:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always considered all peers to be notable. Up until fairly recently they all qualified under WP:POLITICIAN as members of a national legislature and we should keep those who have never sat in the House of Lords for reasons of consistency if nothing else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we specifically don't consider all peers to be notable. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Notability. A number of article about peers and royalty have been deleted in the past. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs on British peers (who are obviously the people I was referring to given the subject of this AfD) have always found the opposite. As I said, until the automatic right to sit in the Lords was removed they were all notable under WP:POLITICIAN anyway. It makes no sense (and is not of value to Wikipedia) to break the chain of articles because they no longer do sit in the Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are insufficient to support WP:NPOL notability. Peers are not inherently notable.--Rpclod (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full bio [8] and on the guardian. Should these titles be abolished, yes, but there is much about modern Britain I'd like to change... Szzuk (talk) 18:46, 3 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Al-e-Ahmad[edit]

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references are provided to support WP:NAUTHOR notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:14, 3 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoman Productions[edit]

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

Not enough independent coverage to have an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep does have a history back to 1980 with films and tv series so there should be offline sources if not online Atlantic306 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Production companies are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. Wikipedia is not a directory of nn businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Atlantic306; producer of various old television serials dating back to the 1980s era of Pakistan Television. Mar4d (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The question is not whether some sources might exist, but whether the subject itself is notable. The mere fact that the subject might have been involved in some notable films, does not make the subject notable.--Rpclod (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No indications of notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This production company has produced very famous movies in Pakistani Film industry. This production company is notable and a many notable people are attached with it. --Spasage (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It has produced a number of films, one of which was WP:notable enough to be mentioned by the BBC, apart from Pakistani or South Asian media. Leo1pard (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the subject helped to produce something that was notable is irrelevant. See WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH for notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would prefer that this page should be kept as a redirect to Shoaib Mansoor, since its summary and references are there already. Leo1pard (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. There are a few sources mentioned, but is it sufficient for notability. M A A Z T A L K 09:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing admin should keep in mind that none of the keep votes are policy based, falls under WP:ILIKEIT. Störm (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to what I said above? Leo1pard (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't ~~struck~~ your original !vote so a closing admin is likely to look only at the reasoning for your Keep !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it being only WP:ILIKEIT. Shoman Production is separate production company is notable. It is mentioned widely on the internet. Redirecting to Shoaib Masoor is tantamount to deletion and it is not a Keep.There can be room for improvement, but definitely not a candidate of delete or redirect. I am not sure which notability criteria this article is missing. --Spasage (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you say it is notable, great, but you haven't proved it. You've only expressed an opinon. There are guidelines contained in WP:NCORP that tell you the criteria for establishing notability and you haven't once referenced this guideline (or any other) as a reason to keep. A closing admin will not pay any attention to "opinions" - there must be reasoning based on policy/guidelines. If you can produce two references that are intellectually independent, not based on press releases or other company announcements or interviews, that either discuss the company in depth (and not its "products" or "employees") or contains independent analysis or opinion on the company, then you will have made a strong case for inclusion. Without references of these sort, according to our policies the article must be deleted. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 9 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YNH Films[edit]

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

Same issue as with previously deleted articles. Company haven't received enough independent coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The mere fact that the subject might have been involved in some notable films, does not make the subject notable. No references show that the subject itself is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 5 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ilm Ki Dunya[edit]

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

Nothing at all in coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as it is notable enough. M A A Z T A L K 21:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability + non-encyclopaedic content. samee ^talk 08:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some of the article appears to be promotional work for a non-notable web portal, while other portions appear to be original research.--Rpclod (talk) 14:23, 3 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Nowicki[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NACTOR. Unresolved notability tag for last seven years. Chetsford (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Appears to have had significant roles, and some coverage found here. --Michig (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources are provided to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm a bit torn on this one, as Mr. Nowicki has more than 140 acting credits according to IMDB, but most are small parts or "guest appearances". However, I have to agree with Rpclod that the lack of reliably-sourced references means that the article should be deleted. PK T(alk) 13:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI have issues with the idea that the number of roles should be important. I suggest it is the type or roles played and not the number. Jimmy Dean was a very small number of movies before died but he has had a tremendous impact to this day. And while I haven’t done my homework on this actor, my point is a universal one: if it turns out that, say, 100 of his roles are listed in the credits as Man in the green coat or Irritable dad at the Little League game, then sure he’s making a living but it doesn’t make him wiki worthy.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to the Orlando Sentinel article that Michig highlighted, there is also this. But beyond these two, I cannot find any significant coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough prominent roles amongst his 140 screen credits to pass criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR and also passes criteria 3 having made prolific contributions to his field of entertainment. There is some rs such as Orlando Sentinel and above but more would help. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. The mere having of roles is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts an actor from having to be properly referenced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to support an article — the notability claim is not "has had roles", but "has received enough RS coverage to clear GNG for the having of roles". But if all we can actually find for reliable source coverage is one article in his local newspaper and one article in a local interest magazine in the same area, then that's simply not enough RS yet. GNG is not just "can show two local sources" — the list of people we would have to keep articles about if two local sources were all it took to clear GNG includes everybody who was ever fire or police chief or chair of the library board of anywhere, everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere, every non-winning candidate for any political office, every local radio DJ, unsigned bands who don't clear NMUSIC and haven't even recorded an album yet, high school athletes, aspiring local actors who haven't cleared NACTOR yet, aspiring local writers who haven't cleared AUTHOR yet, and my mother's neighbour who found a pig in her yard a few years ago. So even a simple GNG pass requires more than "two pieces of local coverage in the topic's own hometown local media exist", because lots of people of no wider encyclopedic interest could show enough local coverage to "clear" GNG if two pieces of hometown coverage were all it took. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 7 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shasta Cascade Broadcasting Corporation[edit]

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

Article is on a holding company that used to own three radio stations and now owns none. While notability is not temporary, I don't think it was probably ever notable. Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: This company played a huge role in bringing radio to a small area and deserves recognition. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We may want to look into sending them a certificate or something then. Wikipedia isn't really an outlet for giving deserving people/groups recognition. Chetsford (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are not based on whether anybody thinks the topic "deserves recognition" or not (a thing which somebody could claim about absolutely anything or anyone that exists at all), but on whether the topic is the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear a notability standard. Specifically, a company has to clear WP:CORPDEPTH as the subject of substantial coverage in media that extends beyond the purely local — but the sources here are (1) its own website about itself, (2) a mere blurb about it in a radio industry trade magazine, and (3) the local newspaper's obituary of a former employee, which is about him rather than about the company. Which means the only source here that isn't a complete non-starter in terms of establishing this company's notability is #2 — but while it's a start, it's not substantive enough to be a finish all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Then all other articles about small broadcast companies need to be deleted or merged with other articles like California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. was with KOBI. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:XY. It owned three radio stations, not just one, so there's no way to decide that one of them is the appropriate merge target without violating WP:NPOV in the process.~~ Actually, on second thought, KMJC would be an appropriate redirect target, since it was the company's first station and the other two came later. Not sure there's much here to really copy over besides what's already there about it, though. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literal duplicate of KMJC and KKLC outside of the final heading (which tells us they're still registered as a company, but they don't do anything). Nothing would be lost with deletion of this article. Nate • (chatter) 18:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH & significant RS coverage not found. There's nothing here that's worth merging to any of the stations. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 6 February 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. Nakon 04:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richland General Store[edit]

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

Unsourced article does not pass WP:CORP and violates WP:NOTPROMO Rusf10 (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Besides no references, what is written cannot be true. The LLC business form did not exist in 1907. Rhadow (talk) 23:04, 3 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Fields[edit]

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

A county sheriff, does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. There is only one source for this article and nothing in the article seems to indicate that the subject did anything particularly notable during his career. Rusf10 (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contingent on outcome of discussion at Talk:Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey as to whether or not subsection Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriffs should be split to stand-alone article. this nomination-decision should postponed/re-listed.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete some county sherrifs are notable, such as Joe Arpio, and David Clarke (sheriff). They however do not show that even all holders of the office in their county are notable. Another example is Warren Evans, although he is probably more notable as Wayne County Executive. Fields however was sherrif of a county that at the time had under 100,000 people (it reached 82,000 in 1900, just after he apparently left office), and the one source is not enough to show that Fields is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County sheriffs are not automatically presumed notable just because they're technically verifiable to one brief blurb in a local history book — they can clear the bar for inclusion if they're the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but there's no evidence of that being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Nothing much beyond routine. Obviously if that person for some reason is in the news (about what he did, not being quoted in a news story about something else) or a controversial figure then yes.Acnetj (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a municipal officeholder fails POLOUTCOMES - no indication of GNG pass Chetsford (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Contingent on outcome of discussion at Talk:Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey as to whether or not subsection Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriffs should be split to stand-alone article. this nomination-decision should postponed/re-listed.Djflem (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Monmouth County, New Jersey The cyclopedia reference undoubtedly about him is a decent one, but there is insufficient evidence of standalone notability at this point. WP:BEFORE and WP:deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion all specify that options to deletion should be considered. There is content here that could be merged and at a minimum redirected to the proposed target.
As stated in the header of this (and every other) AfD: "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is a place in the format of both Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey and List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors for information to be inserted.Djflem (talk) 10:12, 9 February 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. Lots of evidence was supplied of the notability of teams playing in this league, along with a few pieces of evidence of notability of the United Premier Soccer League. But none of those pages was being discussed here. This discussion is about the 2018 UPSL season, and there was no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources of the 2018 UPSL season.
The "keep" !votes outnumbered the "delete" !votes by 7:2, but WP:NOTVOTE ... and in this case, the "delete" !voters offered a reason much better-founded in policy and evidence, viz. that WP:GNG is not satisfied wrt the 2018 UPSL season. Assertions by advocates of keep about the notability of teams are not relevant, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to Keep per review at WP:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 14 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 UPSL season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Jay eyem (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are pages for the seasons of similar level leagues like 2017 PDL season, 2018 NPSL season, and 2017 Premier League of America season. There is independent media coverage of the league as well, although the article itself could be improved by referencing this coverage.Bashum104 (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This league is regularly covered in local and national media. Here are a few recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Bashum104 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ~~The only one of those I would consider a reliable source is Soccer America~~ (EDIT: rescinding this since it isn't the main point that I am trying to demonstrate and appears to wrongly be the source of most of the criticism for my arguments), and none of those sources cover the league's season in its entirety. Jay eyem (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would be a reliable news source to you? These are just the first ones that came up when I Googled the league. What would be an example of a source covering a “league’s season in its entirety”? Bashum104 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The latter is the more important point, and it is the burden of those arguing to keep the article to provide the source under WP:BURDEN Jay eyem (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No I mean can you give an example from ANY sports league of the sort of coverage you’re requesting? I’m not sure what you’re asking for. Bashum104 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, searchable topic. Opposing arguments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You really should attempt to demonstrate notability rather than just accuse people of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jay eyem (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep additional reliable sources added, namely from the Omaha World-Herald and the San Francisco Gate Santaniego (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment those may be useful for establishing notability for the teams themselves, but they are not useful for establishing notability of the article at hand, namely the 2018 season for this amateur league. Jay eyem (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously the coverage for the 2018 season is going to be a bit sparse at this point, given that the season hasn't started or even announced its schedule yet. Nevertheless there is already some coverage of the upcoming season. Here are a few examples: 1 2 3. These are in addition to the ones I posted up thread. Bashum104 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm able to find pages of sources for the teams in the league: [9], [10], [11] to just pile on. A league with local teams is going to have local coverage by local papers. WP:RS There is a lot of it. Trackinfo (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that latter source from the Vox site is more what I'm talking about since it discusses the league (although not the entire league season). I really don't see how any of the other sources listed aren't violations of WP:ROUTINE, though. Jay eyem (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

violations of WP:ROUTINE? First of all, there is no such thing as a "violation," it is YOUR interpretation and categorization of the content in order to achieve the goal of eliminating this league. Local newspapers do what they do, cover the local sports teams. They talk about the upcoming season and what happened previously. If you want to say that is routine, then wipe out all the articles for the NFL and ever other sports league because all coverage is routine by that standard. Obviously a ridiculous overreaction. Trackinfo (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you seriously think comparing a league like NFL to this is a fair comparison? NFL gets way beyond routine coverage, as do other leagues like the Premier League, the Bundesliga, Serie A, etc. So far it remains to be seen whether or not this league can do the same, because it hasn't been demonstrated so far. From WP:ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Can you explain to me which part of that I am reading wrong? Jay eyem (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you are reading wrong is the genericized "sports" within that sentence. You are taking too broad an interpretation. If you demote all sports coverage to routine, then you negate the sourcing to ALL of our sports articles. Routine would be a player's total accomplishments being limited to a single mention buried in the agate. That is a huge difference to a full news report that talks about the local team's entire (upcoming) season in a league, repeated in multiple newspapers for each team in that league. An accumulation of multiple sources that shows each team is notable, the league is notable and the season is notable. And that is what multiple editors are demonstrating with naming all these sources.Trackinfo (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I am not negating the sourcing on all other sports articles. Having JUST routine coverage is not sufficient and there needs to be more than an accumulation of sources demonstrating routine coverage for individual teams. There needs to be a more in-depth article from a reliable source about the season itself that goes beyond routine coverage. This has not yet been provided. And just because each team might be notable in its own right does NOT imply that their seasons are notable under WP:INHERIT. Jay eyem (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about this upthread and now I'll ask again. Can you give an example from ANY sports league of a source you would feel would demonstrate the notability of a sports season? I really just do not understand what it is you are asking us to produce. Bashum104 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Too many references are self interested parties and do not meet the requirements of editorial oversite and control as discussed in WP:RS. Information can be summarized on main UPSL page until (and if) the league gets enough traction to justify separate articles for each season - the US soccer pages are littered with partially complete seasons for leagues that had big dreams but lived a short life and now need to be deleted summarized and cleaned up. Let's do this one right. Keep relevant info on main page and break that info out into a separate pages once the league demonstrates staying power and there will be more Wikipedia s to help do the work and keep the information up to date. Additionally, it appears to me that Too many of the edits on UPSL are by Wikipedians that seem to have either a financial or ownership interest in the league or one of its teams - creating additional neutrality problems that will be difficult for disinterested Wikipedians to monitor Trödel 15:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Spelling it out: The sources mentioned here as self-interested and unreliable include: Lincoln Journal Star, Burleson Star (a local newspaper in Burleson, Texas), WCAV, The Dallas Morning News, KVIA-TV, WDBJ and Nevada Appeal. Please explain the self interest and unreliable nature of local newspapers and TV stations. Trackinfo (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can’t speak for anyone else, but as the person who created the page and made the majority of the edits, I can assure you that I have no financial interest in the league or any of its teams whatsoever. Bashum104 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And for clarity, I have no dog in this fight either. I only write about soccer when it associates to my main subject of track and field. However, I have seen this kind of unfair railroad job attacking content in the past. I do understand WP:RS and local journalism. There are other folks who have created a lot of this content and they need help playing defense.Trackinfo (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the understanding that going forward, references must come from a wider variety of sources, and not mainly from upslsoccer.com. I replaced one of these references with a source from the Omaha World-Herald, for example. Santaniego (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous reliable sources per above. Not sure how anyone could claim otherwise. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does have reliable sources and we have multiple similar articles for other leagues in the US. Mamyles (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I would like to avoid bludgeoning the process, I feel like the recent arguments being made in favor of keep are not addressing the issue at hand. There needs to be significant, detailed, and beyond-routine coverage of this specific UPSL season that is in question from a reliable source. This has not yet been provided. Similar issues were raised during a recent AfD about a college soccer tournament, and although the analogy is not perfect, some of the arguments still apply. The result of that discussion was to redirect to a different page, in this case it could be to the United Premier Soccer League page itself. There is already a table for the champions of the league by season and the information for this season could easily be included there at the end of the season. Jay eyem (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep requesting coverage that is "detailed and beyond routine." Much coverage has been provided that I feel meets that bar. However, you continually deny that this coverage meets your standards. Twice already in this thread I have asked you to provide example(s) of articles that would be beyond routine coverage for seasons of other notable sports league. You have ignored me both times. This example would be helpful because it would allow us to compare this coverage to the coverage the 2018 UPSL season is receiving. If you provided these examples, we would either 1) be able to find coverage of the UPSL season that meets your standards or 2) be able to determine that no such equivalent coverage of this season exists. Bashum104 (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~and I already directed you to WP:BURDEN. It's your responsibility to find these sources, not mine.~~ Jay eyem (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I think I misread your comment. The main issue with most of the sources is that they are just routine coverage announcing that a team will be participating in the following UPSL season. It doesn't indicate that the season itself may be notable. The team may be notable (most appear not to be), and the league may be notable, but that does not mean that the season is notable. You need an article that provides in-depth coverage of the season itself. I encourage you to read some of the comments on the AfD I referred to. I also encourage you to userfy the article should it become notable at some point in the future. Jay eyem (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no examples in that debate of "non-routine" coverage for seasons of other leagues, which is what I've repeatedly asked you to provide. There is certainly more and better coverage of the 2018 UPSL season than there is of the 2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament. Bashum104 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok well then I will re-redirect you to WP:BURDEN and remind you that it is your responsibility to provide these sources, not me. And note, the result in that AfD was a redirect i.e. the article was not kept. I also encourage you to read WP:BADGER. Jay eyem (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one claiming that every source produced here is inadequate. Yet you refuse to produce even a single example of a source that would be adequate? You've set a standard so high that it would be impossible to meet it. I'm not asking you to provide a source for THIS article. I'm asking you to provide a source for ANY article. Is the 2018 USL season notable? How about the 2018 NPSL season? Heck, is even the 2017-18 Premier League notable? Show me an article about one of these leagues that you feel demonstrates notability - that isn't, as you call it, "routine coverage." Show me an article that covers one of those leagues that goes above and beyond the sources we've given in covering this league. Bashum104 (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all those !voting 'keep'; the presence of sources does not equate to notability, and neither does the existence of other similar articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I have yet to see a meaniningful 'keep' !vote, everything is simply coming across as WP:ILIKEIT. Giant Snowman 15:11, 9 February 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. WP:SNOW. Inappropriately nominated. As Nate says below, don't nominate an article and then vote keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro Díaz-Balart[edit]

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

User:Muboshgu has proposed that this article subject may not meet the notability standard for biographies because virtually every reference to the subject mentions that he is the eldest son of Fidel Castro. I bring this here to test that proposition. If this article is kept, it will be because the subject has been determined to be notable, and the notability issue will be resolved in favor of removal of the tag. If, on the other hand, the article subject is not notable, then it will be deleted, and the tag will be moot. bd2412 T 03:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is reliably reported that the article subject was the head of Cuba's doomed nuclear program for twelve years, and that he was later the government official designated to announce that the Cuban government supported the Russian annexation of Crimea. The subject's hobnobbing with Paris Hilton and Naomi Campbell at the outset of the reopening of relations between the Unites States and Cuba was also widely reported. Finally, the subject committed suicide while serving as a reasonably high-ranking official in a national government, and this was reported in major news outlets all over the world. bd2412 T 03:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bd2412. Davey2116 (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was highly inappropriate. I started a talk page discussion as per WP:BEFORE and instead you nominate the page for deletion and vote keep? To try to stave off an actual deletion rationale? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is an actual deletion rationale, the article will be deleted. bd2412 T 04:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BURO; don't nominate an article and then vote keep. It's a waste of the community's time and the subject is obviously notable, and the discussion should have continued per WP:BEFORE. Also, another inappropriate and unseemly 'in the news because of their death, let's AfD' nomination; we need some kind of cool-off period (perhaps a week) where this can't happen. Nate • (chatter) 06:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep: This nomination should never have been created per WP:BURO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - if the notability was not directly in question, why nominate the article for deletion? KingAntenor (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thorough coverage in respected papers such as Newsweek. This article is long overdue, should've been created since when he was alive. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:35, 3 February 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. Nakon 04:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hoffman[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entreprenuer. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, interviews, WP:SPIP and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Affiliated with one notable entity, eMusic, but this is an insufficient claim of significance. The company itself sold for $26M, which is low in the tech / entertainment world. The other entities are non-notable. Created by Special:Contributions/Hoffmang who appears to be the subject himself. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The foundation he worked with may be notable, but nothing shows he is notable as a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 3 February 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. A redirect may be created at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Associate in Music, University of Adelaide[edit]

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

Very short stub page with no references and lack of notability. Search online reveals little notable material of which is already covered by the article Associate in Music, Australia. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "Associate in Music", initially a Diploma awarded by the University of Adelaide's Elder Conservatorium of Music is unrelated to the "Associate in Music, Australia" (AMusA) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Search online reveals little notable material of which is already covered by the article Associate in Music, Australia. - Nonsense. There are several notable articles which are unrelated to AMusA. e.g. https://www.adelaide.edu.au/press/titles/faculty-arts/arts-ebook.pdf page 327: "Thus the provision of both theoretical and practical studies of music became a reality at the University, although initially this was through the diploma course entitled 'Associate in Music', which was introduced in 1900." Pdfpdf (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it's a stub and needs further expansion, but I think I've addressed the nominator's concerns. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very rarely is a partifular degree given by a particular university notable enough to have a seperate article, I see no reason why this would be an exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources are provided to support notability related to this particular degree.--Rpclod (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. Having degrees on every degree issued by every university is excessive, and there are no references that suggest this degree is notable in any way. the Australian Dictionary of Biography entries don't use the acronym in the title or suggest the program is special in any way. If the term wasn't so awkward, a redirect to Elder Conservatorium of Music would be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Change to redirect to Elder Conservatorium of Music#Associate in Music, University of Adelaide Pdfpdf (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No viable arguments or significant-coverage independent citations put forth as to why this might have any significant independent notability. SunChaser (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom মাখামাখি (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does anyone have a problem with me changing it to a redirect to Elder Conservatorium of Music#Associate in Music, University of Adelaide and closing the discussion? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a procedural level, probably best not to when you're an involved contributor to the discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:12, 8 February 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. Due to copyright concerns. May be immediately recreated at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. George[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Article created by banned serial copyright violator and sock puppeteer Billy Hathorn. Marquardtika (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing this nomination, as the article does meet WP:NPOL. However, there are still copyright concerns. I therefore propose that this deletion discussion be closed with the understanding that I will blank the article and recreate it. Marquardtika (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- ~~failure of WP:POLITICIAN~~Likely Copyvio, see explanation below--Rusf10 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a presumptive copyright violation. MER-C 12:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. M A A Z T A L K 17:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. It also smells like a copyvio, for sure, MER-C, but I only find Wikipedia mirrors when I search for phrases in the text. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep His obituary has him as a state senator and we award "inherent notability" to state senators. Most votes talk of a copyright violation (smells like a copyvio) but have not shown what source material was copied. Both of his obituaries are in the public domain, he died in 1899. --RAN (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the creator has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for being an incorrigibly persistent serial copyright violator (his list of copyright violations is sitting at over 700 and counting), the burden of evidence now falls the other way on his content. Yes, George clears WP:NPOL as a state senator, but that just means somebody will be allowed to recreate it from scratch — but given the creator's history, it's no longer "keep unless somebody can prove that this is a copyright violation" (which a Google check doesn't disprove, as it could also be copyvioed from a print-only source such as a book or a newspaper article). Rather, we now have to delete if somebody can't prove that this isn't another copyright violation, and then permit recreation if somebody else is willing to take it on. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the earlier pro- "Delete" comments seem to not have considered that the subject likely passes NPOL on the basis of being a state senator. This leaves open the question of whether or not to treat this as a presumptive copyright violation. I think further discussion is called for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I not changing my vote, but do believe that he passes NPOL because of his position as state senator. Therefore, I still believe the article should be deleted as a likely copyvio as per Bearcat. However, if the article was recreated properly, I would endorse its existence.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to epistemology it is impossible to prove a negative, that it was copied from somewhere under copyright. The article closely copies his obituary, but that was published in 1899 and is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is in public domain, doesn't make it appropriate to copy and paste the whole thing into wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do that all the time. Every initial entry of a US senator or representative was a direct copy and paste from their congressional biography, and we did that to entries from the public domain Encyclopedia Britannica. You are confusing copyright with plagiarism of public domain material. --RAN (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - references are a deleted findagrave entry and a peripheral reference in subscription biography, neither of which are reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC).~~ Based on reference provided by Enos733 below and fact that the subject is a former member of a state legislature, I agree with Enos733's recommendation - blank and recreate. The new article should focus on the subject's notable aspect - being a state senator.--Rpclod (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as a mayor of a small town, the subject does not meet WP:NPOL. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO since the coverage is local and / or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and recreate Served in the Louisiana Senate, passing WP:NPOL (As shown in this Google Book entry). However, because of copyvio issues, the existing text should be blanked and recreated using reliable sourced documents. --Enos733 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shandrix[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some name dropping but that is about it in terms of coverage. Also does not seem to pass WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources are referenced to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:39, 3 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of A Song of Ice and Fire[edit]

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

None of the languages are covered in-depth in-universe besides Dothraki and Valyrian, for which there are already articles, nor are they notable (besides Dothraki and Valyrian) The Verified Cactus 100% 21:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's not much substance to it, we could merge it into the main article. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main article in question being A Song of Ice and Fire? The Verified Cactus 100% 22:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not enough for a stand-alone article unless Dothraki, etc. are merged back (which I don't support). World of A Song of Ice and Fire is a better target than A Song of Ice and Fire. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article is unsourced outside of a fansite, and provides no claim of notability. As mentioned, the only actual notable languages in the group already have sections in other articles. If reliable, secondary sources can be found on any of the others, I would not be opposed to a selective merge to World of A Song of Ice and Fire, as suggested, but either way, this article should not be left as a stand alone article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be original research.--Rpclod (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge, WP:OR fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:39, 4 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The American Shame[edit]

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

Despite extensive searches and checking several sites, I was unable to find any hits for this film, aside from IMDb and mirror sites. In fact, I have a feeling that the film itself doesn't exist, as IMDb seems to be the only place where the film is mentioned. Since it's a 2001 film, offline coverage may exist, but I couldn't find any evidence to suggest that this film was actually made, let alone covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage of the film either. I tend to assume that it's very obscure rather than non-existent, but either way I can't verify anything about it outside IMDb, so it has to be a delete vote. Mortee (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to support the subject's existence, let alone notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as it doesn't mention any sources. M A A Z T A L K 15:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reliable sources required, no indication of importance given. Mattg82 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2001 is not that far. As robust as movie industry is, notable and bare notable films made several years before the Internet are well documented in online sources or at least can be verified from reliable source. This is very likely hoax.–Ammarpad (talk) 12:40, 6 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advisorymandi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Article is cited to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources. Significant RS coverage not found. An article on the same subject has been previously deleted as Advisorymandi.com under the G11 criterion for speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advisorymandi is a one of a kind company in India. I think when Wikipedia alleges that some entity is not famous, they probably mean "not globally famous". But I hope they realize, that India is a highly populous country and one of the fasting growing economies in the world. It is entirely possible for an Indian company to have more users (all within India) than some "international" app or website. It s entirely possible for some Indian book or film to sell more copies/views than some book/film from France or Italy. Please note that all the references for this article are from very reputable sources - again sources that may not be well known in the outside world but which most likely have more viewership in India than The Guardian of the UK or La Figaro of France. Also being that India is one of the fastest growing economies, often "unknown" companies of India are actually poised to become some of the biggest in the world - for eg - each of the "low cost airlines" of India, though not well known to the outside world, are actually on their way to becoming among the biggest in the world, bigger than RyanAir even. Same with Advisoryandi - it does not have to be popular outside India. At the current rates of growth, being that it is the market leader in India, it is bound to become bigger than EToro soon.

Wikipedia has to realize that the bulk of their viewership now comes from emerging economies like India, rather than a UK or Australia - and the trend will keep growing for decades to come. You asked about my background - I am not affiliated with any of these entities. I have earned an MBA and am trying to get my own dot com startup going - and so I know a good and promising company when I see one. SO I post Wikipedia articles about them. User:Subho2017

Delete - does not make any claim to notability per WP:NCORP, and sources fail both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. A search for independent sources doesn't yield anything that would amount to significant coverage. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirraw for a response to the points in the post above (the post in that AfD is almost indentical, and I don't really want to copypaste the same answer). --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

omg - it was almost identical because the reasons hold just as well there as here - Mirraw IS one of the best eCommerce companies of India. It was not my intention to copy-paste anything!! AS for Advisorymandi - as you can see some of the biggest stock market analysis companies of India (eg - Motilal Oswal Group, SMC Global Securities, Religare and Angel Broking) have all participated in their championship and some of the biggest Finance/Business newspapers of India (eg - Economic Times, belongs to Times of India group, Business Standard belongs to Ananda Bazaar Patrika group) have featured stories about Advisorymandi and/or their competition. IF Advisorymandi was such an obscure, run of the mill company, do you think that would happen?User:Subho2017

Delete - press releases and peripheral references are not sufficient to support WP:NORG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails CORPDEPTH and NCORP. MT Train^Discuss 18:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no evidence for notability. The shortage of reliable Indian sources does pose a problem, but it is not solved by our accepting unreliable ones in its place. Experience here has shown that anything about a company in any newspaper there is likely to either be a press release or inspired by a press release. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I find as references are PR released on the same date. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NORG --Hagennos (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 5 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three (Cleveland Cavaliers)[edit]

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

Hello, this page is unnecessary, and should just be moved to the Cleveland Cavaliers franchise history. Several reasons for this include how this team was only around for three years, Kevin loves struggled in his role, the team was never recognized as a big three, the team was only able to secure one championship, Team achieve no great success, the team only primarily considered Irving and James as the superstars. Love, lost his superstar reputation in Cleveland. There’s no reason why this page should exist, can someone present arguments to keep it? Jamesjunky (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know about this one; merging probably makes the most sense but I would like to see other opinions. Sure, there are sources calling them a "Big 3" [12][13][14] but "Big 3" seems to be thrown out for any three good players on a team. Look here, they even consider the team with Dwayne Wade as the "New Big 3" [15] so is it really a notable standalone subject or an overused title? Individual success, championships, and "star" status are irrelevant, but the nom isn't wrong for starting this discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It gets tossed out a few times, but it hasn't gotten much traction because, as the nominator points out, there really aren't three. Also delete Big Three (Oklahoma City Thunder). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (See below). This is a very well-sourced, informed article, and is tricky to opine on due to its overall fine quality. However, I elect to vote for delete for several reasons:

As mentioned before, phrases such as "Big 3" or "Big Three" are significantly overused, and can apply to any three better-than-average players on a sports team.
The article is meant to interpret recent Cavaliers franchise history in a way that unfairly bolsters these three men above the contributions of other team members, but fails to do so, because...
the article's text, instead of detailing the three individually, or what the trio did together, proceeds to detail what the whole Cavaliers team did each season, especially when against the Warriors.
If this article were to be kept, that could set a precedent for other pages to be created with the purpose of emblazoning three above-average players on the same "successful enough" team.

The Cavaliers team featuring these three men went to the NBA finals all three times, winning once. However, the three were only briefly together and were probably only referred to as the "Big Three" in passing. Therefore, I do not believe the issue is with notability, but with interpretation. The information in this article can be allocated to pre-existing pages. The bar, I believe, should be higher for NBA trios to have their own page (good example: Big Three (San Antonio Spurs), featuring Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker). While this Cavaliers trio had accomplishments, this page would be more relevant if the three stayed together for much longer and/or made possibly unparalleled NBA history with each other.

I also agree with Clarityfiend that the page for the Oklahoma City Thunder Big 3 should be tossed. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Mungo Kitsch: What are you thoughts on what a good minimum bar would be? For example, would Big Three (Miami Heat) be OK becuase they won one extra championship (2) and played one more season together (4)? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question. In my opinion, the Miami Heat Big 3 page can be kept, because of their 4-of-4 finals appearances, and also because of the media attention surrounding them when LeBron joined the Heat. When LeBron re-joined the Cavaliers, that event had no equivalent to The Decision.

As for some minimum qualifications, I would propose that whatever trio in question be together over a long-term period, such as at least five or six years (with Heat exception, due to media attention and 100% Finals appearances; also, four seasons is a better sample size than three and has more long-term qualities). The trios should have >/=90% winning/playoff seasons, and frequent appearances in NBA finals or conference finals (let's say >/=66.7%).

While these minimum qualifications are by no means final, and can be brought to consensus if necessary, I think it's a start. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources There are a number of sources that refer to the as "Big Three" and discuss the grouping:
1. "Cavs, 'Big three' kick off new season with first practice". Fox 8. September 27, 2014.
2. "Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love: LeBron's Future Is In Their Hands". GQ. October 3, 2014.
3. "LeBron James, the Big Three and Basketball Revolution". The Paris Review. February 5, 2016.
4. "Cleveland Cavaliers: LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love have been big producers against Pacers". The Morning Journal. April 19, 2017.
5. "What NBA Finals Game 7 revealed about each of Cleveland Cavaliers' Big Three". The Plain Dealer. July 29, 2017.
6. "Cavaliers' Tyronn Lue vows to make Kevin Love bigger part of offense". ESPN.com. May 11, 2017.
7. "Warriors have the best Big Three in the NBA. And the second best. And the third". The Washington Post. October 18, 2016.

While it can be argued that it's a non-original term that is over used in NBA coverage to apply to three stars of a team, there's little doubt the "Big Three" was often applied to Cleveland's trio of James, Love, and Irving.—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Most relevant in rebuttal to the nomination, WP:N states that "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." This Cleveland grouping was covered extensively over a sustained period, even if Big Three is a cliché for star NBA trios or if there are better threesomes in league history. I'm not keen on the current format and content of the article, but that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE and independent of its notability.—Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By this trash logic we can apply that to OKC’s current team, the current Timberwolves team, and current the Celtics team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.2.178.120 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... I stand by my expressed concerns when I initially voted delete. However, after giving the article and the situation considerable thought, as well as factoring Bagumba's collection of sources affirming that Love, LeBron, and Irving are a "Big 3", I have changed my opinion on whether or not to keep the article. After all, the trio's 3-of-3 finals appearances are significant.

With that established, I propose, in order to further justify the existence of this article, that all three members of the trio have their own brief entries on the page, detailing info such as their stats and how they arrived onto the Cavaliers roster. This would be in a style similar to the equivalent San Antonio Spurs page (the page has three content concern tags at its head, dated from August 2016, but that's another ball of wax).

In conclusion, if and when future "Big 3" pages are made, they should be made with discretion and respect. I would suggest that such pages be made in retrospect once the trio(s) are disestablished, or when the trios are already well-accomplished after, say, 5+ seasons. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* This page makes no sense. LeBron James carried the team to a finals with Kyrie Irvin in 2015, in 2016 Love was benched because of how badly he played, and in 2017 Love played well. This is a terrible overexaggeration. The 2013 Lakers were a Big Three as well who got massive media coverage. This is a dangerous precedent to set because the term Big 3 will lose it's value. The Spurs trio had over a decade of coverage and legacy while the 2012 Heat were marketed as a Big 3 to start with. What we have here is Irving, James, and a solid role player in Kevin Love. This does not deserve a Wikipedia page, it deserves to be in the Cav's franchise history. 35.1.103.105 (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST regarding the Lakers is not a reason to delete this. If a better name than "Big Three" materializes in the future, an WP:RM can be initiated. While you personally might not think much of Kevin Love, the fact is that he is a 5-time NBA All-Star, hardly the "role player" that you suggest.—Bagumba (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- IP address note Both 35.1.103.105 and 35.2.178.120 (above) are from the University of Michigan, and likely the same person.—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. overly specific and better dealt with in more general articles about the team DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.221.197 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer While the previous IPs have been from the University of Michigan, this IP is from Ann Arbor, Michigan, when the school is based. This one also has the same quirk as 35.1.103.105 of placing an asterisk after their "delete" vote. Likely another sock and should be discounted.—Bagumba (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike all IP votes as socks 35.1.103.105, 35.2.178.120, and 50.241.221.197 are suspected WP:SOCKs of the nominator Jamesjunky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Before this AfD, many IPs had tagged this page for AfD, but failed to complete the process by creating the AfD page per WP:AFDHOWTO (IPs can't create any pages and must leave a request). 50.241.221.197 had tried to prod [16] and twice tagged for Afd [17][18] the article a few months ago. Curiously, another University of Michigan IP had tagged the article for AfD too). Finally, the AfD nominator is a new account whose first edit was to nominate this AfD. Jamesjunky can also be seen collaborating with 50.241.221.197 to remove the same content from Jackson Citizen Patriot (see its history).—Bagumba (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I notice that there is no active sock investigation at this time. If you have sockpuppeting concerns about the account and IPs, feel free to open an investigation here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I warned the user already, in case they were not aware of policy. An SPI can be opened if behavior persists. I chose to put the details here for now, as the details are relevant to the AfD closure and SPIs are often backlogged.—Bagumba (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think we need to look beyond the GNG for articles like this. There are many groupings of athletes that can be shown to have received coverage in the media, but that doesn't mean that all of those groups need their own Wikipedia pages. There's nothing in the current article that makes me understand why this particular Big Three is interesting or unique. The bulk of the article is generic game recaps that can be presented elsewhere. I could support an article on Miami's Big 3, given the hype and controversy surrounding their founding. I could support on article on Detroit's "Bad Boys", given that they had a distinctive style of play. But the Cleveland Big 3? How much more can you really say that you can't say somewhere else? I realize that none of this is grounded in specific guidelines or policies, but I really don't think we should be encouraging articles like this. I'm not crazy about the Spurs article, either. That one is little more than game recaps and selective use of statistics. Zagalejo^^^ 02:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It feels like we need to come up with a standard for what constitutes a notable "big three" in basketball - it is a very common sportswriter device. I kind of agree with Zagalejo that even if mentioned in the press I have a question if it is actually notable in this case or if it was just a hype mechanism. Rikster2 (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- At a minimum at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Three (Oklahoma City Thunder), it was unanimous that Big Threes that haven't been together even a season should not generally have their own article. Additionally, I think if sources talk a lot about the three players as a group, and not just use the hype of using the name in passing, there is merit to it being considered notable.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple, or even a lot, of references in the sports media don't make for notability and an independent article. There's so many of those threes, and before you know we'll have all of them, with not just teams in parentheses but also years. I was thinking Twin Towers (San Antonio Spurs) might be a better case, but that one also is already bad enough--half the article is a summary of the biographies of Duncan and Robinson, and the rest is a recap of the Spurs during their careers, as if it only takes the two of them. I have no doubt that articles can be written on sets of players in a team because of their interactions, tensions, successes--one thinks of Kobe and Shaq, and I am somewhat surprised that Stockton to Malone is a red link: those sets are verifiably notable, more notable than this one, which was only together for a few years anyway. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: Do you mean to argue here that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST so this should be deleted too, or that it is WP:UGLY and should not be left to improve? Or that it meets GNG but WP:IAR because this isn't encyclopedic? Do you think groups of players can be Wikipedia-notable even if they are not all Hall of Famers like Stockton–Malone or Shaq–Kobe? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bagumba, I am giving arguments for why I think this is not notable. You can throw a bunch of acronyms at the wall like spaghetti to see what sticks, but that does not matter much to me. I am saying "delete because these run of the mill mentions don't establish notability". Except that I am trying to do it in more words, as a service to the reader. I didn't use "Hall of Fame" as an argument, but thank you for putting words in my mouth. But OK, if you want to know why the Stockton-Malone connection is Wikipedia-worthy, in my opinion: [19], [20], [21], and this. You can't do that for this set of players. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable made up concept. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:46, 10 February 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 telecom companies in India. Ugh, it looks like somebody moved this in the middle of the AfD. Folks, please don't do that. It just makes it that much more confusing to sort out when closing these discussion. In any case, the gist of this discussion is that there should be one list instead of the myriad ones we've got now. So, I'm going to redirect all of these:

to point to List of telecom companies in India. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phone companies of India[edit]

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

It is a listcruft. There is an almost similar template Template:Telecommunication companies of India and an article Mobile network operators of India, which is about the same thing. M A A Z T A L K 10:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the basically identical article, List of telecom companies in India I do think that Mobile network operators of India could be merged there too. It's basically a duplicate article. In fact there seem to be three basically identical articles, none of them long enough to justify a split. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

~~Keep~~ – Qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Mobile phone companies of India. The List of telecom companies in India article is already a bit disorganized, so merging there will just add to the soup. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't mind which one is kept, just that there should not be three of them. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Why not? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Because they are all the same subject and mostly the same content, it would make more sense to focus efforts into one or two lists. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Struck my !vote upon further consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Duplicate The content that is supposed to be covered here is already covered under Mobile network operators of India which is a much comprehensive article. This just duplicates that info. Hagennos (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged both the articles and since the other article is new, have proposed speedy on that. If speedy is done on that then I suggest this AfD to be closed as Keep. Hagennos (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Good job. ~~Keep~~ the article in it's current state. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

~~The article was not speedy deleted and this is still a duplicate. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

— WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Delete Exact duplicate of Mobile network operators of India with just a different title. The other article has a much more apt title and is significantly older. Gotitbro (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CFORK. Content is also covered under: List of mobile network operators of the Asia Pacific region#India. Ajf773 (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be similar to Mobile phone industry in China and similar articles for other countries, but the section with manufacturers was blanked, possibly unintentionally. The other article can then be merged to this one. Peter James (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of telecom companies in India; Mobile network operators of India should also be redirected there. We don't need three pages with the exact same list; but I see no reason not to have one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested seems a sensible way of handling this. DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 11 February 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. The keep votes cite convincing policy-based rationales and are more numerous than the delete votes. Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddominant[edit]

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

Non-notable and previously deleted article. Still fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Just another case of WP:TOOSOON. Stanleytux (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still lacks any notability as a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meet's criteria 8 of WP:MUSICBIO which is being nominated for a major music award, being "major" is being credible and this award's are City People Entertainment Awards & Soundcity MVP Awards Festival. He meet's criteria 12 of WP:MUSICBIO which is being a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network, he was featured on Channels TV [22].. In addition to the word "major", it wasn't defined to be only awards such as the Grammy but awards that are notable enough to have a stand alone article and since City People Entertainment Awards & Soundcity MVP Awards Festival has one it's notable to criteria 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. He does not meet wiki guidelines as a singer but he passes as a producer, let take a movie for an instant. Being a director of a movie that had 2 major awards winning films, whether or not he passes WP:GNG, he is notable enough because he met WP:FILMS. Let now look at it in the same point of view as a music producer, he produced a song titled Rihanna (Orezi song) that had 2 major awards The Headies & Channel O Music Video Awards that show's his notable enough even if he fail's WP:GNG. Like it is stated on WP:MUSICBIO may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria and he met two, as side that he was part of a Sony release project in 2016 "Son of Mercy - EP" by Davido which got nominated for Nigeria Entertainment Awards 2017 for Best Album of the Year. Also he met WP:ANYBIO, with all this i don't see him as a case of WP:TOOSOON. It is also stated in WP:MUSICBIO that NOT all notable articles must meet WP:GNG and I agree that it does not meet WP:GNG but it meets WP:MUSICBIO, WP:MUSICBIO never stated criteria 1 which is WP:GNG as a most meet. City People Entertainment Awards and Soundcity MVP African Producer Of The Year nomination is NOT a small feat at all which ended up a controversy between Kiddominant & Soundcity MVP after he loss the award to Young John. Also note, "Like Dat" by Davido, "Fall" by Davido, "The Money" by Davido, "Mama" by Mayorkun, "Che Che" by Mayorkun, "Marry" by DJ Neptune, "Double Your Hustle" by Orezi & " Rihanna" by Orezi were major hits all over Nigeria in terms of airplay and awards won/nom. He also passes WP:ENTERTAINER he met all criteria, has had a significant roles in television shows, stage performances with "Mayorkun" at the "Mayor Of Lagos Concert" held in December, 2017 alogside Davido being the hyper man on stage [23], also has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following him on his verified page on Instagram with over 63 thousand followers and has also made unique contributions to the entertainment field with the sound he fuses together which was also discussed on The Hundreds magazine on an interview he had in 2016 [24]. He also passes WP:COMPOSER for co-writing music for a notable composition and was also nominated for co-writing "Mama" by Mayorkun at The Beatz Award 2017 [25]..--MKJ6006 (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep accomplished and popular musician. Substantial coverage cited in article such here. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say the coverage and award nominations in, for example [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], add up to a GNG pass. It's good to have this as a blue link from Rihanna (Orezi song) and he does have an extensive list of production credits. Mortee (talk) 04:57, 3 February 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. No consensus to delete this article. Nakon 04:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin Cottage Natural Grocers[edit]

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

Advertisement, with no acceptable sources for notability , and no reason to think there will be any. The awards are utterly trivial. The references are to mere announcements. Added in 2008, G11 declined--which may have ben correct by the low standards of that time--and made worse by single purpose editors editors since then. DGG ( talk ) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, no evidence of notability. Tacyarg (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete advertisement for the company (and its stock price) " new stores opening monthly" says it all, namely "acquire me too, Amazon!". Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure how nom would conclude that there is "no reason to think there will be any" acceptable sources for notability. A 60-year-old publicly traded company with 140 locations is quite likely to have such sources available, and it does. Some of the content is overly promotional, but AfD is not the place to deal with that. Ongoing coverage in the Denver Post ([32] [33] [34]), Rocky Mountain News ([35] [36] [37]), Denver Business Journal ([38] [39] [40]), and ColoradoBiz ([41] [42] [43]). Profiled in Inc. magazine. Covered in various other publications ([44] [45] [46] [47]). Toohool (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep manifestly notable. Plenty of coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toohool, clearly there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is well-known company here in Colorado, and it's an important part of the economy of Colorado and other states. With some editing to provide a more-neutral tone, the article will be useful. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Every "keep" vote here has made hand-wavy claims citing zero sources or policies. AfD is not a Facebook "like" contest. I have cleaned up the article further. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though this company is a publically quoted company and has been established for quite some time, none of the references above or within the article meets the criteria for establishing notabilty. Articles that are extensively based on quotations and interviews with company personnel or other "connected" people are considered PRIMARY sources and therefore fail to establish notability and may also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. If the reference is based on quotations and interviews but *also* contains substantial intellectually independent opinion/analysis, then the reference probably meets the criteria for establishing notability. Unfortunately, I don't believe that any of the references provided manages to meet the criteria. But ... WP:LISTED specifically states Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. To that end, this reference lists a number of analyst firms and banks that cover this company and states that "Several other analysts have also recently issued report on NGVC". This reference also provides a list of analyst opinions. Since I am not a customer of any of the brokerage arms of these banks or a customer of any of the analyst firms, I cannot attest that the analyst reports actually exist ... but I think it is reasonable to assume that they do. On that basis, it meets the criteria WP:LISTED. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:20, 8 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political Parties in Sikkim[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their reasons are:

WP:V: No sources whatsoever, borders on OR and even if it isn't, the article's primary subject being Indian political parties would require it cites its sources since WP:NOTBLUE would apply, if such knowledge is obvious to readers in India (and then, WP:PARIS could also be valid). Also, I don't know if I'm abusing the criteria, but this falls remarkably short of WP:DIRECTORY. No context, no additional information about linked articles. This needs to be thoroughly checked, along with other topic articles (ex. Elections in Sikkim) and other articles by the creator who has been warned multiple times about creating unsourced articles. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal opinion on the matter. Reyk _YO! 14:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Article still fails WP:V but it could be made into something viable so will let time do the rest. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, completely legit article subject, that can easily be expanded with prose. Remember that Sikkim was an independent state with a number of political parties prior to integration with India. --Soman (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs to be written properly with small description and sources for each political party. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the page does have potential and can be useful for anyone interested in Sikkim politics. But it has a long way to go. Instead of it being a stray list with minimal, if any, context, every current and former party should have at least a cursory explanation regarding their history, accomplishments, political stances (economic, social, legal, governmental, etc.), and notable people (such as elected officials). Once this page is given greater expansion and more details, then it can be more maximally useful than it currently is. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 04:25, 3 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of Vevey[edit]

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

Seeing no in depth coverage (in fact very few mentions that would pass the RS test), and as a record unlikely to have lasting notability (after all it will only be famous until a bigger one is made). Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage in the article is very in-depth indicating passing WP:GNG. We go by reliable sources to demonstrate what's notable, not blind original research speculation as to what is. --Oakshade (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over half the sources are primary, and thus do not establish notability, so what in depth coverage is left?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage in ABC and The Guinness Book of World Records are sufficient to establish notability. --Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is all trivial and in passing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep world record setting fork. Covered substantially in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a tourist attraction and permanent exhibit. The article is sufficiently well sourced to be retained. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 6 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McCabe[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Alerting creator of this version, WP:Spa Mike13589. Did redirect to the election, which was reverted. Boleyn (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Boelyn has made an subjective claim that suggests this notably historic figure does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG standards. Since these guidelines are arbitrary, I suggest performing a brief search through news articles to discover how prolific this person of note is. There are countless articles citing him and his work in reference to their impact on local elections in his state. In addition to his run for office, he has been a noteworthy activist in state politics, with publications going as far as describing him as "synonymous" with the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign - a non-profit that has informed and been cited by several national newspapers covering Wisconsin politics. In addition to this, in addition to his run for office and in addition to his newsworthy book, he has also founded another state political watchdog group called Blue Jean Nation, which has also been featured by prominent news organizations.^[1]. I have been trying to learn more about this figure since he began running for office, but without a Wikipedia page, I've been forced to look through countless articles to learn more. I consider a Wikipedia page to be fully justified, if not overdue at this point, especially since omitting him may affect the state election. Thank you for your full consideration on this subject. Mike13589 20:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the WP:NPOL guidelines, they cite reference 8, which states: "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists," qualifies as a politician of note. I believe that the several news feature articles and political articles that have been cited may count toward this criterium. Please review. Mike13589 21:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the WP:GNG claim: "If a topic has received (a)significant coverage in (b)reliable sources that are (c)independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (a) Significant coverage: This person of note has been featured in several interviews, has been cited as a source of information and is generally considered a large political actor in the state. (b) Reliable sources: all of the cited sources are taken from established news organizations, including the associated press, the NY Times and Politifact - with the exception of a quote taken from and attributed to the mission statement of the organization directed by this person of note. (c) Independent of the subject: As mentioned, all sources are taken from reliable and independent news organizations with the exception of said quote. I understand that there is a possibility that this topical person of note may not be published despite the presumed suitability demonstrated, but I do not understand how this article is in violation of WP:GNG. Please elaborate. Mike13589 21:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable unelected candidate for political office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage of this dude and his campaigns. Not sure what the issue is. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NPOL criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has received extensive media coverage in Wisconsin, not just for this campaign but for a previous job as a campaign finance activist. Elixiri (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:28, 5 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal Named-Entity Recognizer[edit]

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

Doubt if it has notability. – 333 -blue, 11:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MER participated in the biocreative international competition (http://www.becalm.eu/pages/biocreative) with top results and its publication has more than 200 views on https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316545534_MER_a_Minimal_Named-Entity_Recognition_Tagger_and_Annotation_Server. --Xicouto (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is a once-off idea that either nobody cared about, or is too new to warrant an article. It has almost no trace in the literature. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - one reference does not indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt. As the author admits here, "no one knows about him". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

N. Gopala Rao[edit]

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

Declined speedy because article doesn't meet speedy criteria, but this this discussion (sadly) illustrates that it does not meed the critieria for notability (especially venerability).

Previously existed as Nandikolla Gopala Rao. Note to closing admin: may be necessary to salt. Tóraí (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non-notable painter. FITINDIA 00:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, Salt, block article creator (I wish) and so on. A Major time-waster for a non-notable subject.104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: one might look at the author of this article, as they do odd things like create articles that are very close duplicates of existing ones...104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Energy Challenges and Mechanics[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable, somewhat amateurishly-produced relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODded by article creator who on the talk page and in edit summaries claims that this meet NJournals#2 by adding a few citations to some articles published in this journal. However, articles from notable journals will be cited at a minimum hundreds of times, so the handful of citations shown by GScholar does not even come close to meeting NJournals#2. Clearly does not meet NJournals (let alone GNG), hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, total fail of WP:NJOURNALS. That individual articles are occasionally cited in other journals is not evidence of notability. This is literally indexed nowhere, see MIAR: 2056-9386. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with merging this to North Sea (publisher), if it existed/was notable. But it doesn't, and is probably unlikely to be notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – here is a selection of citations demonstrating that it fulfills C2 of WP:NJournals. User:Randykitty's assertion that an item needs to be cited "at a minimum hundreds of times" in order to be notable appears to be a statement of opinion, as there is no such requirement expressed within WP:NJournals itself. Here is a selection of instances where J Energy Chall Mech has been cited in well-established sources (list is non-exhaustive):

Citations

Energy
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
Journal of Energy Storage
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X1630278X
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X16300913
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583615301705
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583617300658
Ocean Engineering - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029801817307369
Fisheries - http://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03632415.2017.1276330
Renewable Energy - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148115304511
Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128035818040054
Surface and Coatings Technology - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0257897216312816
Applied Energy - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191500149X
Journal of Microbiological Methods - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701216303426
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research - http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b02211
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210650215000978
Reliability Engineering & System Safety - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832016308316

I can't argue with the fact that this journal is relatively new, but I would argue that it is notable in part precisely because, despite having only published 13 issues in 4 volumes thus far, it has already been cited numerous times in such major publications.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 19:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, the most highly cited article from this journal has 15 cites, the next one has 4 cites, then two with have 3 cites, and then a dozen or so with 2 or 1 cites. With an h-index of ~2, this is nothing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Headbomb. On rare occasions, a journal can be notable even before it attracts many citations, if the act of founding it received sufficient coverage in multiple independent sources. That does not appear to apply here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. put simply, not yet notable-- and , considering that it is essentially a device to publish papers from a single series of non-notable conferences, not likely to ever be. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 3 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Tech Knives[edit]

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

Lacks Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littledipples (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Weak Keep on this one. I'm seeing some coverage of the company and its knove including in relation to special knives its made and legislation on knife sales but I'd like to see a few more major soirces covering the company in depth. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- References? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article reads like a promotional brochure and none of the references indicate any notability. WP is not a directory--Rpclod (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article for a run-of-the-mill company. References fail the criteria for establishing notabilty. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:53, 5 February 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Footwear News Achievement Awards[edit]

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

This awards program, a promotion by the trade magazine "Footwear News," is only sourced to the magazine itself. A BEFORE fails to find any other acknowledgment of the awards. Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015's event got some coverage outside of Footwear News, although mainly because Kanye West picked up an award for his shoe.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54] I don't know why this year has a page and no other years do; it might be better to have one article on the history of the awards which could include a list of winners for each year. Rihanna won something in 2016, also getting a lot of press, and fashion trade papers like WWD seem to cover it every year. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT. None of the sources found by Colapeninsula represent in-depth coverage about the subject. No lasting significance.--Pontificalibus 13:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about one year's ceremony, but without any prejudice at all against someone making a new article about the awards as a whole, per Colapeninsula. They're clearly well-attended and they've accrued attention over time. Billboard has called them "the industry bible for footwear" (as List of awards and nominations received by Rihanna § Footwear News Achievement Awards notes). (Surprising that "A BEFORE fails to find any other acknowledgment of the awards") But, there's little to say about any one year so the better structure is one article about the lot. Mortee (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable industry award, that's PR-driven. I'm not convinced that the program is notable as a whole either. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole award is likely not notable not talk of one of its event. It just got some media coverage due to personalities they invited. If you remove those references of who attended the award is stark non notable.–Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 5 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lipo-flavonoid[edit]

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

A dietary supplement. The article was speedily deleted as WP:G11 (wholly promotional). Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 January 16 concluded that AfD should make this decision. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 09:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on pubmed about this term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't aware of the deletion review. Deb (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Artspam. Coverage is mostly from manufacturer. Lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete pseudomedical dietary supplement advertising; a perfect example, actually. ooo science-y! Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 6 February 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 War in Donbass. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Coalition in support of Ukraine[edit]

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

"an informal international association of countries and world organizations that are the allies of Ukraine in hybrid war" looks like a random list of "### supports Ukraine" links. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This should be part of a larger article like War in Donbass in order to add context. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with War in Donbass as per @C.W. Gilmore's suggestion. Quis separabit? 02:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at best merge per above. This appears to be original research.--Rpclod (talk) 14:59, 3 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlashForge[edit]

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

Criteria for speedy deletion A7 is contested, thus requesting discussion. Jusjih (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because:

--AAAAA (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

1. The brand has over 2 Million results in Google, as you can see here:

https://www.google.com/search?ei=lB5hWrPlGcKvzwLw_YmwDQ&q=Flashforge&oq=Flashforge&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1l2j0i20i263k1j0i20i264k1j0l6.342987.344874.0.345747.10.10.0.0.0.0.153.848.9j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.10.848...46j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i131i20i263i264k1j0i46k1j0i10k1.0.hG4WDfe0VnQ

2. The FlashForge FINDER 3D Printer model is one of the top 10 3D Printers of 2018, as you can see here: https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470038,00.asp

3. Four of their 3D Printers are rated over 8 on 3D hubs, as you can see here: https://www.3dhubs.com/3d-printers

4. The Flashforge Finder is number 9 in the list of top 3D Printers in 3dhubs: https://www.3dhubs.com/best-3d-printer-guide

5. If the FlashForge page is deleted, why do all the other 3D Printer Manufactures are not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_printer_manufacturers

6. There are not thousands or even hundreds of 3D Printer Manufacturers in the world. In wikipedia's own List of 3D Printer Manufacturers there are only 30 Manufacturers. I believe that Wikipedia should have an entry for every single one. 3D Printing is still a nascent industry and one day it will probably be of substantial importance in Industry. Every single 3D Printer Manufacturer that exists right now has the potential of becoming one of the main manufacturers in the future.

7. FlashForge has MANY patents. Run of the mill companies have no patents or maybe a couple.

--AAAAA (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete -- fails WP:NCORP & WP:CORPDEPTH. It's WP:TOOSOON for an article, per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - wholly promotional...Mean as custard (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does not meet the requirements for inclusion in the WP:NCORP policy. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a very recognized and widespread brand. If you search for "3D Printer" on google, (Which I did: I bought one) many of the seach results will be printers produced by FlashForge. The article may be bad, but it's still a very notable topic and should be kept so it can be expanded by others later. L293D (✉) 15:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: I can't find any independent reliable sources, what makes you say it's a very notable topic? Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ильина Оля Яковна: Their products speak for themselves. If you search "3D Printer" on amazon, more than ten percent are FlashForge 3D Printers. Other than that I must say you're right that there are not many references about it. L293D (✉) 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but which policy are you basing your comment on? I can't see anything that says popular products are inherently notable, and all the policies I have read say there have to be independent reliable sources for a company to be notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, complete SPAM, fails GNG and WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. --Pontificalibus 08:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So that Pontificalibus's list of potential sources can be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Let anyone interested fix the article in draftspace. It's not ready for article space although there is some coverage of the company and its products. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - At present, the article is a poorly written promotional brochure with no independent references to support notability. However, other comments above indicate sources are available.--Rpclod (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I don't think that usefying a poorly written promotional brochure with no independent references is a good idea. If the company is notable (of which I'm not convinced) then a non-COI editor would eventually create it -- in a neutral fashion and with proper references. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. Userfying spam is not what AfD is for. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we decided whether it's notable in this discussion? Once that is determined, the article can either be improved or deleted. I see no purpose in either userfying it, or deleting and recreating it. If we don't determine notability now, then that's a big disincentive for a non-COI editor to recreate it, since it might subsequently be renominated and deleted. --Pontificalibus 12:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this subject to be non-notable, hence my !vote above. I was making a point how little if makes sense to userfy the current content, i.e.: none at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Pontificalibus's list of potential sources. All of the references are reviews of one product or another manufactured and sold by Flashforge. None of the references provide any in-depth information on the company itself. Notability is not inherited. If the company was notable, it should be possible to find references that meet the criteria for estalishing notabiltiy and none have been produced to date. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 7 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coill Ua bhFiachrach[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable place; fails NGEO. Quis separabit? 02:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails WP:V--Rusf10 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it meets the requirements of both WP:V and WP:NGEO, it just takes some effort and knowledge to find the information. In the book "Genealogies, Tribes & Customs of Hy-Fiachrach: Commonly Called O'Dowda's Country, By John O'Donovan" on page 2, the place is mentioned. Also on page 4, there is about 4 paragraphs of information which says the name is "still well known", which seems to agree with whats stated in the article. link to book (link to book may not work, in which case try Google books). However, it also clearly says the name is anglicised as Killovyeragh, so the title here is incorrect. The policy simply says that all populated places and official designations are notable, even if they no longer exists, this seems quite clear to me, as this was an officially designated subdivision of Ireland, it is notable despite having been abolished since. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Here is another copy at archive.org referencing Killovyeragh that you might use for a citation and with no references or citations to support the article it is less likely to be kept. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I added that as a citation, also I found the ordnance survey letters clearly used by the original author and added those those as a citation also. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Keep according to what I wrote above, and the other available information which convinces me the place did exist. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~This could really use some comments. I added sources, I say it meets WP:GEOLAND. Any input would be good since it's been relisted twice. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)~~ — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and comments above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - just because a geographic unit was defined, does not make it notable. Nothing indicates that this is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GEOLAND since notability is not temporary. If it was once notable, it's always notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:25, 5 February 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. Nakon 04:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Shumate[edit]

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

A Silver Star and a Military Cross, both third level, aren't enough to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. He gets mentioned for what he did to earn those honors in a couple of books,[55][56] but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure about this one. It is very unusual for British gallantry awards to be conferred on non-Commonwealth people, so I wouldn't vote delete out of hand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for his own article; trivia. Kierzek (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Verified the award of the Military Cross to McDaniel and Shumate. I found several references to the incident, eg It was the first time a blood transfusion was administered on a helicopter. The British officer in question, Lt Stanley Leonard, RN, rose to become a captain. [57] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with all due respect for the gentleman, nothing indicates he was notable per WP:ANYBIO.--Rpclod (talk) 15:09, 3 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hossein Khan[edit]

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

No biographical information actually included, aside from name. Unfocused and confusing article. Not clear how it helps in understanding any topic. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. If Khan was such a central figure in Istafan in the early-19th century, we should have more sources on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably redirect somewhere. This has the feel of becoming a redirect with possibilities, if someone can find enough to make an article, rather than a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - subject is clearly notable in a BEFORE. The Persian article seems adequately sourced. And in English - the number and diversity of book hits in English seems to indicate importance. What is really needed here is a Persian speaker willing to do cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following improved sourcing in article.Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to agree that there is something here to work with: Iran Almanac and Book of Facts, Volume 8 (1969) ("Iran is surprisingly rich in the field of archaeology. A modest effort was made in the early years or the 19th Century to preserve some of them. The first on record is by Haj Mohammad Hossein Khan Sadre-Esfahani who undertook such repairs in Isfahan at his own expense during the reign of Fath Ali Shah.") Not sure whether the best approach is to keep or to merge to Isfahan 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename to Muhammad Husayn Khan, the more common spelling. I'm expanding the article a bit, including adding a couple sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements, and you can just move it to the name you have suggested when this closes as far as I am concerned. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability being established. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and sourcing by Smmurphy. Sufficient notability demonstrated at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 3 February 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 Trick 'r Treat. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trick 'r Treat: Days of the Dead[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced, fails GNG. No major activity since 2016. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 05:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trick 'r Treat. That article already contains more real-world information about the comic than this article does. I found some reviews that could be used to expand the section, but not enough to support a standalone article. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per sound reasoning and facts of situation as explained above. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:46, 3 February 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Teri Bajayenge Hum Band[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources inckuding the articles already cited in the entry. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - press releases for a future movie are not sufficient to support WP:NMOVIE criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NFILM. Created by Special:Contributions/MumbaiMediaEditor45 currently indef blocked as part of sock farm, so a high probability of this being UPE. WP:DENY applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article's creator has been confirmed as a sock puppet and blocked indefinitely.--Rpclod (talk) 11:47, 9 February 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.