< 15 January 17 January >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twighburg (web series)[edit]

Twighburg (web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this web series meets the general notability guideline. The references are either irrelevant or ot sufficiently independent from the subject. A Google search finds nothing that meets the requirements for reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://cinando.com/en/Film/twighburg_stories_278502/Detail https://www.facebook.com/groups/337810656654501/permalink/395178067584426/ http://forum.lifepointacademy.com/video/ys4fiA9kxeI0 https://ok.ru/video/296565212658 http://rentaldj.ru/watch/JU884ZqOuOM/twighburg-series-film-directors-pitch-videoObzor.html https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/twighburg-series#/ http://tutubes.info/onlain/newsvideoYklWdVhPRG8tSlU http://www.mega-stars.ru/video-yt/R4gvE1P6szg.php DENAMAX (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the general notability guideline, the article needs references that indicate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I am still waiting to see a reliable source. See also the discussion of reliable sources on the verifiability page. Providing a large quantity of unqualified sources, especially those that are not independent or that only mention the subject peripherally, does not overcome the lack of reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are reliable sources. DENAMAX (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help save the article. Who knows Russian to find sources. DENAMAX (talk) 13:09, 19 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Track[edit]

Open Source Track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No working references, not much content, doesn't appear to exist any more, if it ever did. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 16 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) 23:58, 16 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) 23:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:58, 16 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ☆ Bri (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Ellis Bowlt[edit]

John Ellis Bowlt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not holding a named professorship etc. as detailed at WP:NPROF. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:29, 17 January 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 for copyright infringement. MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesselton College[edit]

Jesselton College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a phony Malayan university, which looks pretty much like an advertising. No authority sources could be found online, just some partnerships with other phony universities. Doubts in accreditation. --Lingveno (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:30, 17 January 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. CSD A7, promotional content, thinly veiled advert - TNT❤ 22:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Kitten Surprise[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rainbow Kitten Surprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sigh. This has been deleted twice in the past year, but apparently is not a candidate for speedy. I hate to open another procedural AfD, but it seems that it's the only option available. GMGtalk 22:32, 16 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Bodine[edit]

Larry Bodine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The article does not provide a single reliable source and I couldn't find much better in a WP:BEFORE. WP:PROMO. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:30, 17 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White City, Colchester[edit]

White City, Colchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very minor area of a medium sized town: no local government specific to the area, it is not even a ward on the local council in its own right. Any number of ill-defined parts of any given town could have a couple of sentences written about them, without there being any real natability. White City is not marked on local maps. Kevin McE (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 17 January 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 Haksan Publishing. J04n(talk page) 15:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rure[edit]

Rure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dead links/redlinks, stub, questionable notability on English Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BK. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 21:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:33, 17 January 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) 00:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Driven to Tears (disambiguation)[edit]

Driven to Tears (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's only two topics on the page, and the SpongeBob episode does not even have an article, and has a hatnote on The Police's song. JE98 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:25, 16 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mhairi Threlfall[edit]

Mhairi Threlfall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a local councillor. Coverage is essentially limited to mentions/quotations in local press. Hut 8.5 21:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:34, 17 January 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. J04n(talk page) 15:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skylords Reborn[edit]

Skylords Reborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently in closed beta and thus non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 16 January 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. If someone wants to merge this material into another article, I will userfy upon request. MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paritosh Uttam[edit]

Paritosh Uttam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR.One of his book(s) was adapted into a film which garnered covg. in reliable sources but had only trivial mentions about the author/book.Seems to have featured in 1/2 promo-interviews, though.All in all, too soon. Winged BladesGodric 10:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Egaoblai:--I would highly appreciate your's reading the nomination statement prior to casting your !vote.Please provide the articles in reliable sources that are not interviews (In Indian media circles, sans a few almost all are paid-self-promo-tools and are hardly independent) and that manages to provide significant non-trivial coverage about the subject.Winged BladesGodric 03:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help the article in surviving this AfD?This and this Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1st reference is OK.
As to the 2nd, I have strong doubts about the editorial independence of these magazines, which spans up every other day, esp. when coupled with their regular exploitation as promotional tools.So, that doesn't lend much to his notability. Winged BladesGodric 04:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. Meanwhile, I will cite this OK reference to the article. Dial911 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but interviews are indicators of notability, according to WP:Interview :"An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." Now you say that "in Indian media circles" these are paid for. This is approaching systemic bias as we cannot simply discount and entire country based on this line. Reliable sources does not blanket ban certain sources from entire countries, which is what you seem to be implying here. If you believe that interviews in this article are paid for, then it is up for you to show that. otherwise, they remain indicators of notability.Egaoblai (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many good sources in the article.Among those that are present, Between the lines is not a RS.I would be amused if you thought it to be! Also, you cannot rely on the biographical profile of authors at the website of their own publishing houses.And, neither do I know, that having one's book published by a reputed publishing house lends automatic notability.
Doing a typical GSearch leads me to this, this and this.The first two is acutely non-reliable.The latter (third) is interesting--the source is generally highly reliable but the sub-genre of interviews aren't.See the ending:--Read more of his stories on paritoshuttam.com--linked to his own webiste.Or simply become a fan of Pariotsh Uttam and interact with the young author here!--which's linked to his Rediff profile)) Also, they even carried an excerpt of Uttam's story.
Overall, there is sparse media covg. located about here (the source provided just before which is good and present at the article), here (which's again the review of the film based on his book) and this fits a typical WP:BLP1E.
I, for one searched the TOI and The Telegraph archives but failed to retrieve anything significant.Winged BladesGodric 11:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maya (cigarette)[edit]

Maya (cigarette) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG.No notable covg. across reliable sources.Promo-stuff. Winged BladesGodric 09:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 09:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 09:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wiki should not be deleted, and here is why I believe that. - The Wikipedia article does not purely exist out of advertising sources. It is a mix of the recognition that the brand is, in fact, owned by Landewyck Tobacco, the places where the brand is sold, and the advertisement posters and other accesories. - The Wikipedia article is not written out in a biased way, like what I have witnessed in several other pages. The page is written in a neutral point of view, with the advertisement part only partaking a small part of the rest of the Wikipedia. - The Wikipedia article has mainly the advert sources, because that is all I could find on this particular brand. In most cases, information is limited and in this case I chose to use these sources because otherwise the article would be a near-complete stub with very little information. I do invite you to find more sources though, as I have not been able to find any more than the current ones.

I do hope these arguments will be taken into consideration before deletion, thank you.

MatteoNL97 (talk)

In that case, it simple means your brand isn't yet notable enough to pass our notability-guidelines.Winged BladesGodric 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to GNG?Winged BladesGodric 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to add another comment, to follow up on what Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) said. I think his comment is quite reflective, considering the amount of Wikipedia's who got and often still get accepted without meeting the guidelines of notability here. I've recently started to update already existing cigarette Wiki's which, very often, barely had any sourcing, if any at all until I added it, and they all got accepted and stayed up for years. Meanwhile, I upload a small Wikipedia article with a few sources, and suddently it doesn't quality? That sounds a bit hypocritical in my book.

I strive to deliver knowledge of what I see as a subject that has had a big impact on a lot of societies for years, but is now seen as one of the biggest taboos (at least here in the West), hence why I've decided to create a lot of articles regarding cigarette brands, and why I've decided to update the existing ones. My goal is to show the good and the bad, and all my Wiki's have always been accepted, even if there were like, 2 sources up until when you started reviewing them.

Do take that into consideration before the final judgement, thank you.

MatteoNL97 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists.You're not here to right great wrongs and absence of reliable significant sourcing will mean mandatory deletion of the articles.Winged BladesGodric 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari[edit]

Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think that the subject of the article does not have any notibility by its own. If we look at the article's soureces we can see it quite clearly that either the sources are primary or related to her undirectly and also the article violate wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. Thats why I think the article should be deleted Ominictionary (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 15:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 15:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 15:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DebashisM, there is a announcement from Asif Zardari that Aseefa Bhutto Zardari will stand 2018 election. She has been a Rotary Ambassador and former UN Ambassador for Polio Eradication and both are international organization. But Bakhtawar has only work for that which completely belong to her family. Also there is no news of her holding any public office. Also important to mention my created article is completely based on secondary sources unlike this one. So, I think both are not similar claim of fame. Ominictionary (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 10:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment:- The article violate WP:PRIMARY SOURCE so its WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:COPYPASTE policy extencively. The article has been copy pasted from her own biography. If one look properly, they can see it clearly that the article's most of the reference are primary.

After seeing all this we can say that the article violate wikipedia's many policy and this is nothing except a propaganda, so I think there is no reason to keep it at all. Ominictionary (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:29, 16 January 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. Seems like this discussion hinges on whether the proffered sources are indeed sufficient to establish GNG based notability, and opinions appear to vary (especially on the "in-depth" coverage question) without a killer argument being presented in either direction. So no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Buell[edit]

Ryan Buell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability requirements and article has had outstanding issues since at least 2010. MisterTimelord (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the topic meets WP:GNG. Thinker78 (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subject meets GNG. He was a main character in a popular TV show that was presented in the whole country, and probably internationally through cable, and he was in it for a few years. That's why many reliable sources address the subject directly and in detail, because he is notable. Thinker78 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 10:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what criteria you are referring to regarding WP:FRINGEBLP. Could you please quote the relevant text in said guideline? What I found in WP:FRINGEBLP actually supports keeping the article. Namely the guideline states, "Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner". As shown previously, there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner. For me "enough" would be at least three different reliable and independent sources. Consequently, the topic meets WP:FRINGEBLP criteria. Regarding WP:CELEBRITY, its second criteria says, "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"; according to ABC, "Buell has a pretty big fan base across the country". And, as mentioned previously, the topic meets GNG, therefore it is notable. Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", and such sources has already been shown in a previous comment. If you don't like what the sources talk about the subject, please quote a specific policy or guideline that backs up what you say. Thinker78 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves." We don't have such sources. We have sensationalized news stories of the "dog bites man" sort. There is no source that has been identified which offers a serious, extensive biographical look at this subject. Rather we have sources which salaciously tell the story of a cancer diagnosis that may have been fake, a promotional tour that never was, and arrest and convictions that may be related to a drug addiction. That's not good enough. jps (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with you. The sources I posted discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner. And they also have significant coverage about the subject, therefore meeting GNG also. Notice how GNG establishes the criteria only as "significant coverage", which is defined as "directly and in detail". All that coverage by different, independent, reliable sources makes the topic notable. Thinker78 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources that are listed here investigate the subject in an extensive manner. It's sensationalism, pure and simple. jps (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. As proven with example sources above, topic meets GNG, which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article"". And WP:SENSATION is a guideline for events not people. Besides, the article is not about a scandal or some gossip, but about a notable former TV show presenter. Thinker78 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a clarifying sentence since it seems that noob Wikipedians can't help but be pedantic. SMH. jps (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://wbtw.com/2016/09/21/ae-ghost-hunter-ryan-buell-arrested-in-florence-county/
  2. ^ http://abc11.com/entertainment/celebrity-ghost-hunter-jailed/1520780/
  3. ^ http://www.tvguide.com/news/ryan-buell-cancer-1051833/
  4. ^ http://people.com/tv/paranormal-states-ryan-buell-on-cancer-battle-i-had-to-go-to-deaths-door/
  5. ^ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-10-18/entertainment/chi-books-ryan-buell-booksigning_1_paranormal-state-star-ryan-buell-interview
  6. ^ http://www.eonline.com/news/336791/paranormal-state-star-ryan-buell-diagnosed-with-pancreatic-cancer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Is Mind[edit]

Justice Is Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN indie film, fails WP:NFILM and the GNG. While the article appears to have sources, anything beyond a superficial examination reveals a raft of press releases, namedrops, screening announcements, statements unsupported by the sources and other trivial mentions that fail to meet the GNG. The creation of a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity seems to be to promote the producer and his three indie films (the other two which are at AfD), who furthermore admits his involvement with the film in edit summaries, is repeatedly reverting copyvios and removing the AfD template from the article, and has received a block for doing so; WP:COI's plainly in play. Ravenswing 12:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 12:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 12:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 10:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: As Omicron4 (the SPA creating the article) knows, the notability standards for films are quite a bit more stringent than "was theatrically released" or "been reviewed" (although he's yet to cite the reviews from the "numerous media outlets" alleged to exist). In fact, the criterion dealing with both holds that in order to be considered notable: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The latter doesn't exist, and no evidence of the former has hit reliable sources save for a smattering of one-off screenings at SF conventions and college lectures. Ravenswing 22:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Ravenswing's obsession and bias in getting this page deleted is obvious. If this editor bothered to look at the sources cited in the article or even bothered to do a simple Google search Ravenswing would see the numerous articles and reviews about this film. And for Ravenswing's edification the film was theatrically released. Again Ravenswing's use of the word "smattering" shows clear bias against this film. This is an editor who couldn't even interpret how Box Office Mojo reports box office receipts. Ravenswing insisted there was only one screening when in fact there was fourteen. But as Ravenswing was proven wrong now thinks the word smattering is appropriate. What is Ravenswing's obsession with this film? Just because an editor doesn't like a film doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Omicron4 (TALK) —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 17 January 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. J04n(talk page) 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet Series[edit]

Alphabet Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No cause to merge 25 existing articles into one super-long article that would only scream to be split again. (Three or four novels might be one thing, but 25!) Also, this merger was carried out barely a day after this article's creator had proposed it at Talk:Sue Grafton#Merge the novels together?, after only one response (an Oppose response) had been received. There are now three Oppose responses, there, including mine. Largoplazo (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, does this mean I think they aren't notable and should be deleted? Absolutely not. The series as a whole is certainly notable, with plenty of discussion of awards, themes, reception, etc. As for the individual books, well, WP:PROVEIT by adding something that isn't a plot summary. If someone wants to make such a book article stand on its own, I have absolutely no objection, and the merged article can simply use a ((main)) to point readers at it. If you look at the old AFDs, the consensus was strongly that these were notable topics, but nowhere did it say that these notable topics couldn't be covered in a series article.

As for the opposes on the talk page, most of the opposes seem to be under the apprehension that I was proposing deleting the content. Which isn't the case. I realize that some people back in 2007-2010 poisoned the well by performing "merges" that were really just deletions, but I am eliminating zero content; readers will see exactly the same article they would have before, just via redirect to a section of a longer article, rather than to a tiny plot-only stub.

As for the accusation of undue haste, as I already explained to the nominator on the talk page, I did not actually redirect the existing articles yet, awaiting more discussion on the Sue Grafton talk page. We are all volunteers here, I was doing something I thought would help the case for a merger by showing what the final article would look like. When I created this article, it was a 1:1 discussion with only one person opposing, and silly me thought that maybe an example might convince them. So please don't accuse me of bad faith here. If you truly want to stand on procedure here, we can move this article back to the Draft namespace, but I don't think that would help much, since we clearly disagree on whether the actual redirects should be carried out.

If the complaint is that the resulting article will be too long, I disagree; the actual problem is that the current articles are too short, and are really better off as sections in a longer article. That said, if length is truly the concern, then I would have no objection to something like Alphabet Series, 1982–1996 and Alphabet Series, 1998–2017 which would render the merged articles shorter. (And, as a reminder, if you're imagining A Big Huge Section that isn't just a plot summary gumming up the series page, well, those books can stay as separate articles. This doesn't apply to any of the book articles we have so far, however.) It shouldn't be an issue. SnowFire (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merging the articles on each novel into long boring article, but support an article about the series, an overview, as is done with other series of novels on Wikipedia. Putting the plot summaries of all 25 novels in one article is not a good article. Each novel has been reviewed separately, so those reviews can be hunted up and added to the article on each novel. Looking at the articles on the novels, many cite review or interview articles but never use those articles as the base for a Reviews section. An article on the series is also useful, but it would talk about the main character's age changing little over the 25 novels meaning the whole series is set in the 1980s without cell phones, changes in the nature of the cases, her character as a detective, and include reviews of the whole series. Two series come to mind, The Cadfael Chronicles and The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, which have one article about the series and then an article for each novel in it (save the last two in the newer series). Bernard Cornwell has written several historical novel series, and the articles follow the same approach, for example The Saxon Stories which includes Death of Kings, a novel with its own article and its own reviews. In the opening paragraph for the article on each novel in the series, the series name is given and wiki-linked, and the series article is linked in the infobox -- see the opening of The Holy Thief as an example. There was a good review of The Alphabet Series by Sue Grafton on NPR this week, indicating its impact on detective novels as a genre, as a starter for the series article: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/02/575068781/a-is-for-appreciation-how-sue-grafton-helped-transform-the-mystery-genre . So that monstrosity of an article in the building can be cleared out, but a real article about the series could be inserted in its place. Some of the material in the article about the author could also appear in a good article on the series, or be moved from one article to the other. I hope there are editors who can add a Review or Review and Awards section to the article on each novel. This was a big seller of a series, so I assume, but I have not looked, that Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews had reviews of most if not all of the novels, in addition to reviews in newspapers and magazines. I have read only a few in this series, and cannot describe the plots the way Maureen Corrigan did in her NPR piece. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kinsey Millhone itself already includes an overview of the series. Not that that overview couldn't be broken out and expanded, if there's anything to add to an expansion that isn't already covered there and under Sue Grafton, but there may or may not be compelling reasons to bother. Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also oppose: complete agree with Prairieplant and Largoplazo – no need to remove the book articles, which could be expanded. An overview article for the series would be good, but kept with minimal plot summary/overview for each book rather than a gigantic article. ‑‑YodinT 22:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yodin: The frustrating thing for me is that these book article could still be expanded even if they are merged to a series article for now. I'm repeating myself, but my argument is a manner of how to present the content Wikipedia currently has, not to permanently salt the articles as forever unworthy. If someone wants to expand such an article, great, they can do so. Until they do - and they've had 10+ years already - the content can be kept in the series article. Just to make it very explicit what I'm saying, book 16 gets merged to the series article next week. In three months, someone starts expanding the content in the book 16 section of the series article. Someone realizes that they have more content than just one section, they take the content, and put it in the Book 16 redirect. They change the series article to have a ((main|Book 16)) template instead of the section, and everyone is happy. I don't see why the ability to expand such individual book articles would somehow be stopped by the creation of a series article. I believe you that they might have potential! But that's not a problem... SnowFire (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire: thanks for the reply, and I see where you're coming from: the current articles aren't great, so rather than making readers go between all these different articles it could be better to put them all in one article (or two). I also appreciate that you're not trying to remove content. In my opinion though, the Alphabet Series article (which again I think should be kept) should not go into anywhere near this much detail for the plots of each book (I doubt anyone will read the whole article in one go), but should have a 3 to 4 line synopsis, giving an overview of the book but not the full story and shouldn't have full infoboxes for each one. For me that's the usefulness of having a series overview article, and sub-articles that allow people to read more if they want, making it easy for people to browse and get the gist of each book, but also have the option to read a bit more. ‑‑YodinT 13:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, this was never going to be a content fork - either A) the other book articles would be merged and redirected to the series article; or B) it will become a series overview article that doesn't replicate the content per Yodin; or C) it'll just redirect to Kinsey Milhone. I was going to do C anyway if the merge proposal failed per the talk page, which seems likely, but Largo filed the AFD anyway. SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify which talk page messages you are talking about? SnowFire (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 16 January 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. SoWhy 12:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Miller[edit]

Daniel J. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Commendable, but the sources are just too weak to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this would qualify pretty much every British regular soldier of the 19th and early 20th centuries for an article. I'd better get writing... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my updates, there really is a lot of information about him. Regarding his suitability for the encyclopedia, I'd say that the Cheney Award is a very significant award, and while not a part of SOLDIER, could be a part of ANYBIO #1 (except it very much is not well-known). He flew a number of rescue missions in Korea which got national media coverage, although in the article I mostly used local coverage because those articles are the most complete. Also, he commanded an air support squadron in Vietnam (there is a typo in his obituary, it says the 13th, but it was actually the 19th Tactical Air Support Squadron [4]). I know that isn't a flag officer role. Anyway, there it is - please feel free to look things over; and while I have your attention, his obituary says while in Vietnam he was "at Nka Liang", does anyone know what that is? As for the 3 wars -> presumed suitability, I do not think that argument is necessary in this case. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on the point about national coverage of Miller; I find such coverage for three events in particular: his March 1951 rescue of Frank Presley (here is a sample), his role in the July 1951 armistice talks at Kaesong (here is a sample), and his receiving the Cheney Award in September 1952 (here is a sample). Note that the search terms for each are different, slight variations give different results. National papers giving in depth coverage of these events include the LA Times, Orlando Sentinel, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Cincinnati Enquirer, and the Chicago Tribune. Many smaller papers covered the events as well as papers in NYC and Arizona, which may be considered local as he/his family lived in those places at those times. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Miller in this clipping may be a different guy. He's an Army first lieutenant and by this time our Miller was higher in rank. On top of that, the unit cited is an Army aviation unit, not Air Force. That still doesn't ID Nka Liang, but it may not be necessary.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. That is certainly his son, though - same name, but with a Jr, same hometown newspaper, grandmother's last name is Brophy. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 16 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Value of Earth[edit]

Value of Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is entirely WP:OR and cites no references. There are some pages that discuss this topic, but they don't seem particularly credible. [5] power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - doesn't that mean that with inflation, the value of earth must have now increased significantly! Time to remortgage.Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in this case there as been no inflation - the price today is the same as in 2003 - invaluable.
: -) Jonpatterns (talk) 11:07, 21 January 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. MBisanz talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaourt[edit]

Yaourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References non-notable publications, and passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yeah, I guess, if you want to say It's FOSS and Digital Ocean are non-notable and delete every article in Wikiproject Linux that can't be cited to OMG! Ubuntu! - the Arch Linux article is long enough, but I would probably support merging and redirecting to Arch Linux package managers if we had such an article.SeraphWiki (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that Digital Ocean is only cited for "Yaourt is the French word for Yoghurt" that is quite a claim. If you were to try to submit a tutorial you would find out that it is not "a user submitted tutorial with no editorial oversight" - contributors are paid, work with editors and they have to apply to become contributors.
  • Additionally, as a Wiki, we want others to think we are reliable but we can't accept any other Wikis as reliable - sure, few come close, and most are pale imitations, but ArchWiki is extremely reliable and up to date. It's disappointing that we can't find reliable sources for articles about a community-driven project, being ourselves a community-driven project, especially when the issue is reliable sources for Linux-related content. The entire FOSS community trusts these people with their system upgrades, but we can't use them as reliable expert or specialist sources? Just who do we think we are anyway? If we can't establish notability for one of the most widely used package managers of a major Linux distribution we must be doing something wrong - but c'est la vie.SeraphWiki (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SeraphWiki, user-generated content is basically never acceptable as an RS, per WP:UGC. As an experienced editor you should be aware of that. If you want to start an RFC to change our policy on that, by all means go ahead, but this is not the place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and maybe an RfC would be a good idea at some point. I also don't especially think every AUR helper needs a standalone article, especially when we don't have the general article yet. They should probably all be in one article with pacman, and that is easier to find sources for anyway.SeraphWiki (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of references can be improved and as a matter of fact, I inserted a few more references from more reliable resources (i.e. the website of Arch Linux). I also support merging and redirecting this page into a more general article but deletion is, in my opinion, an overkill as Yaourt is considered a useful tool in communities of Arch-based distributions. مظهر (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • مظهر, these new sources fail to demonstrate notability. Your citations to Wiktionary and cnrtl.fr merely demonstrate the fact that "yaourt" is the French word for yogurt, which is not in dispute, and they do nothing to show that the Yaourt software is notable. The ArchWiki ref is a wiki and per WP:UGC can't be accepted as a reliable source that demonstrates notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:36, 17 January 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 Taiwanese animation. MBisanz talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taiwanese animations[edit]

List of Taiwanese animations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an indiscriminate list, there are a few listings that have articles (and may be notable) however it appears there is no clear inclusion policy and much of it appears to be original research. The large swafts of text in Chinese also don't do the article any favours Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in the Chinese article [6] a fair number of these are bluelinked, although it is questionable we'll get to that state in the English version. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 16 January 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. As this will be the first time this page is being deleted will not salt J04n(talk page) 15:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kuwar[edit]

Marina Kuwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication that Kuwar is notable. The given sources are celebrity gossip and don't cover her in appreciable detail. They don't even suffice to verify key statements in the paragraphs they're cited for. Google News doesn't show anything helpful. Huon (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP address blocked for evading a block on Ruchidamania (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The strike-out was struck out. After consulting with another admin, we no longer believe that IP address is related to Ruchidamania so I reinstate the vote. --Yamla (talk) 19:19, 22 January 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 deleted as per WP:A7. North America1000 13:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kasey Millstead[edit]

Kasey Millstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see fan reviews only, nothing that would satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:51, 17 January 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. Other people have found additional sources that show the full names of these people and demonstrate that WP:SOLDIER is met. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Bowles[edit]

R. Bowles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. Article is sourced to an entry in a list of "Commanders-in-Chief in Bombay". Several similarly-sourced articles also nominated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
C. Boye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done. I didn't account for abbreviations of Major general. Kges1901 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a number of medieval bishops and princes regnant that are just as short.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 18 January 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 Already Deleted. Article has already been deleted. SQLQuery me! 00:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Young (Entrepreneur)[edit]

Christian Young (Entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "entrepreneur" with no coverage in RS. In fact, most of the sources don't mention him and if they do, it's in passing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:26, 16 January 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 Withdrawn. Sandstein 07:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Achievement Test Series[edit]

Stanford Achievement Test Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A test used in American schools. The article does not indicate the topic's notability (WP:GNG). Google shows that this is a thing that exists and is used and mentioned in news media, but I don't find in-depth coverage. Even Google Books only seems to find one-paragraph descriptions. Now there might well be more coverage to find, but as it is we can't keep this article. Sandstein 20:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. The article is sourced now thanks to XOR'easter. Sandstein 07:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the tests you mention, LaundryPizza, are connected to college admissions. This SAT is very different; it's used to measure student progress over the course of her pre-college years. Unschool 04:58, 17 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawana Aneja[edit]

Bhawana Aneja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor, has only done supporting roles. Cant seem to find sources on the subject in question. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Article created by an editor with Autopatrolled rights and am wondering an editor with so many articles under his belt would source the page with (kapilganeshphotography.blogspot.co.uk, YouTube, filmibeat.com and bollywoodbx.com.) FITINDIA 20:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:49, 17 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Liw[edit]

Daniel Liw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I would be happy to userfy the page to anyone with a reasonable request to merge anything into one of the bands he has been in. J04n(talk page) 15:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Doran[edit]

Rob Doran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor former member of band – fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:49, 16 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf Einarsson[edit]

Ulf Einarsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:14, 17 January 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. (non-admin closure)  samee  talk 08:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a redirect per DreamLinker. Störm (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cowasjee Group[edit]

Cowasjee Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When I tried to improve I found nothing in sources. Actually we have an article which discusses in detail about shipping industry East & West Steamship Company. No coverage so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 07:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:45, 16 January 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. North America1000 09:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yashodhara Lal[edit]

Yashodhara Lal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR.Typical promotional-interviews. Winged BladesGodric 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to find any significant non-trivial coverage and hence we are here.Also see why many interviews are unreliable.Your efforts as the orig. article creator is appreciated:)Winged BladesGodric 19:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:44, 16 January 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. North America1000 09:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ble Patumrach R-Siam[edit]

Ble Patumrach R-Siam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The content in the article mostly depends upon the self published promotional websites. Abishe (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:43, 16 January 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. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Gopan[edit]

Vivek Gopan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Indian actor and low-league cricketer Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:42, 16 January 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. J04n(talk page) 15:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkUKnow[edit]

ThinkUKnow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable, no sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:41, 16 January 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. MBisanz talk 18:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in American commodity farming[edit]

Issues in American commodity farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unfocused essay. Topic is too specific, sources are too vague to verify, and the article doesn't seem to be something on which a coherent article can be formed. If this is a notable topic after all, then WP:TNT and start over. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I would not say it is is unfocused. Google search for "commodity farming" quickly shows quite a few text which discus precisely the article subject: problems associated with commodity farming. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Staszek Lem: If there is content worth keeping, why not just merge it to commodity farming? "Issues" is too vague a term, and leads to slapdash examplefarming (pardon the pun). And oh wait, commodity farming doesn't have an article either! Is this even a thing? Why not make a parent article first, instead of a random collection of "issues"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever you say, colleague, but this is not the topic of AfD. The collection is not "random" and issues discussed are real and severe, i.e., of encyclopedic value. I agree the text is essayish and probably may be split into subtopics. For example "Environmental effects" section is hardly limited to "American" and will nicely go into Environmental impact of agriculture. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:41, 16 January 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. SoWhy 12:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Mitsuhara[edit]

Yuki Mitsuhara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the requirements of WP:NBASKETBALL. Pichpich (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 03:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those references is that they only mention Mitsuhara in passing. There's absolutely zero in-depth content that can be used to build a proper article. Pichpich (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:40, 16 January 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. J04n(talk page) 16:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D-Block Boys[edit]

D-Block Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable street gang lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. References are all brief statements that someone belonged to the gang. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:39, 16 January 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) 00:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rosen[edit]

Keith Rosen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find much in the way of independent sources covering him. It appears to be mostly fluffy PR type pieces, passing mentions and primary sources to be found. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:11, 17 January 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. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Brown (bandy)[edit]

Kevin Brown (bandy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 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. MBisanz talk 18:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katharina Rembi[edit]

Katharina Rembi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a definite case of WP:TOOSOON. Yes she's modeled/been in a campaign for notable names but there is virtually no coverage of her in independent RS and fortunately for WP, Instagram follower counts don't really matter. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:09, 17 January 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. J04n(talk page) 16:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truckstop.com[edit]

Truckstop.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company, a BEFORE search reveals slim press releases but nothing substantial to meet CORPDEPTH jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:56, 17 January 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. MBisanz talk 18:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Ravi[edit]

Rahul Ravi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor/model that has been repeatedly recreated. Despite the newer sources that were included and claims to be in notable films and shows, there are no such sources I can find after scouring several places that support this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Ravi (Malayalam Actor). The only mention I can find of him in any news source is a questionable source at best but also an interview, so fails just about everything. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:55, 17 January 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. MBisanz talk 18:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Bet Type All Up[edit]

Cross Bet Type All Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A jargon-specific betting type from Hong Kong Jockey Club. All Up is basically the same as accumulator or Parlay (gambling). I would have turned this into a redirect, but the term itself is not used anywhere else besides the club. [25] We don't need a list of redirects or articles for every little variant. Other groups use All Up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 16 January 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. MBisanz talk 18:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Composite Win (Horse Racing Terminology)[edit]

Composite Win (Horse Racing Terminology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These are jargon-specific terms the Hong Kong Jockey Club uses for some of its bets. This doesn't really need an individual article as it is not notable outside of the club, yet it doesn't need a redirect either because there aren't other articles on composite wins. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:23, 16 January 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) 00:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Đerek[edit]

Viktor Đerek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 17 January 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) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wooley[edit]

Ryan Wooley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this page is about me and has a lot of inaccurate information. It also appears that it hasn't been updated in close to five years. I don't feel I need a wikipedia account, nor know why one was created and never maintained. SportsFan730 (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Ryan Wooley

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 17 January 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. MBisanz talk 18:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power Horse[edit]

Power Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this for speedy which was declined. The refs here are almost entirely press releases or raw churnalism based on them. This is a fake "article" that is just industrial pollution ---the product of PR with not a thing anyone can learn from. Great for making people aware of the product which was the obvious goal. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:51, 17 January 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. J04n(talk page) 16:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yūko Sasaki (voice actress)[edit]

Yūko Sasaki (voice actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another barely notable voice actress. Only significant role was as Kotake Sakura in Chibi Maruko-chan, not enough to meet WP:ENT. She tends to play a lot of mother or grandmother roles. But other than that, her article is just an unsourced credits dump as is her Japanese Wikipedia entry. Very little chance of getting any significant coverage of her in sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 16 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian states ranked by ease of doing business[edit]

Indian states ranked by ease of doing business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not only am I usure about the notability of this topic. I am also concerned that it is very possibly a copyvio of its source. TheLongTone (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:15, 17 January 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. J04n(talk page) 18:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP[edit]

Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on a non-notable accountancy firm, one of the top twenty such firms in New York, with 240 employees. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by a paid member of staff, who has at least declared the conflict of interest. A draft at AfC was abandoned in favour of moving the article into mainspace without approval. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:05, 16 January 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) 00:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazar Fedorchuk[edit]

Nazar Fedorchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this person meets WP:BIO, and can find no reliable sources covering him. The article bears all the hallmarks of a contribution by an undisclosed CoI (paid) editor, including inline external links. An article with this title was turned down at AfC on May 4 2017 and this version was moved to mainspace later the same day. The creator has not edited since. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:04, 16 January 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. SoWhy 12:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Muslim Lawyers[edit]

National Association of Muslim Lawyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant found. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:04, 16 January 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. J04n(talk page) 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Helmer[edit]

George Helmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was tagged for notability in 2011, and I still can find nothing online to say he's notable. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 January 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. obvious spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Jones (physician)[edit]

Lawrence Jones (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, and this article is all promotional. All I can find about him is that he promoted a form of pseudoscience he developed. Natureium (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 January 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. J04n(talk page) 16:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wakim[edit]

Paul Wakim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 16 January 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. North America1000 09:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Magicboard Online[edit]

Disney Magicboard Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This online game does not seem to be notable. Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 10:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Babymissfortune 10:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 12:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia article notes:

    Disney Magicboard Online (迪士尼魔幻飞板) is a racing online game based on characters from classic Disney series. This online game was released only in China on December 10, 2007. It was developed by the China game developer Shanda under license of The Walt Disney Company.

    A search for sources using "迪士尼魔幻飞板" as the search term returns many results.

    Cunard (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 16 January 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. SoWhy 12:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sync.com[edit]

Sync.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NORG notably WP:ORGDEPTH. The sources are 1: company website, 2: passing mention, 3: business directory, 4: a review of product, 5: an article about the company when it was a startup that says "Here’s a startup that can be successful, and if all claims it’s making are indeed true, Dropbox and Google should take note." 6: routine coverage, 7: PR article with quotes from company personnel, 8: company blog, 9: company website Domdeparis (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 16 January 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. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bixop[edit]

Bixop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any sources in English or other languages that could support such an article. While I don't speak Portuguese, I still can't find any independent RS that have in-depth coverage. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn Those are both interviews, thus WP:PRIMARY and not significant independent coverage. I don't see how someone talking about themselves in two sources (one questionably reliable) meets GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting to keep at this point nor do I agree with you that an interview violates WP:PRIMARY; as in many interviews, the questioning by the interviewer involves synthesis that makes the interview a viable secondary source; neither of these sources are diary entries or recordings of monologues by the subject that are irretrievably primary in nature. What I indicate is that there is a potential here for a credible claim of notability and that further digging in non-English sources and expansion of the article might result in a credible article per WP:GNG for which I might consider changing my vote to Keep; I'm not sure that you would disagree with that opinion. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are fine for sourcing BLP content. Primary sources, interviews in particular are not fine for establishing notability. I have no issue with an interview being included in an article but it doesn't establish notability, which is why this AFD is happening. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are agreeing here. If I believed that these interviews were prima facie evidence of notability I would have voted Keep. What I am indicating is that there may be credible claims of notability and that further digging -- perhaps using these sources as a starting point -- might well lead to additional sources and expansion of the article that *might* merit changing my vote to Keep. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 16 January 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) 00:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilder family[edit]

Wilder family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article does not meet the notability criteria, WP:NOTINHERITED. The members of the Wilder family are not important in their own right, but only as being related to Laura Ingalls Wilder and being mentioned in her books. The article contains no references to reliable independent sources about members of the family. Information on her family could be included on the author's page, but not as a standalone article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:44, 16 January 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. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Roenfeld[edit]

Ryan Roenfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe he's sufficiently notable. The references are inadequate for a WP:BLP - two interviews with him and a report of an initiative which he started, but which isn't about him. Even in these, he's usually described as a "local historian". Searches found loads of run-of-the-mill book reviews, booksellers etc. but not the kind of in-depth discussion of him we usually need for an article. There are a few local newspaper sources, but nothing beyond this. Neiltonks (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 16 January 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. North America1000 10:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee Air[edit]

Cherokee Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company web site is dead. No press except for entry in industry directory. It's not an airline (no scheduled service). Two airplanes is not notable. Rhadow (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 18 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila T. Davis[edit]

Jamila T. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Convicted for a non-notable (per NCRIME) crime. After release she authored several books, all (or mostly) published via Voices International Publications which seems to be publishing mostly her material ( and related work - e.g. The High Price I Had to Pay seems to be a series by a number of authors). Sources in article are NJ for the conviction in 2008, Daily Kos, a wordpress blog, and 2 items by a Forbes contributor. BEFORE doesn't show much more - she is mentioned in this book - [26] which does not seem connected to her publishing (though is on a similar vein). Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 16 January 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. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMGC Global Entertainment[edit]

IMGC Global Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant about the company in WP:RS. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:36, 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 10:41, 16 January 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. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matteela Films[edit]

Matteela Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant about the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 13:44, 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 10:41, 16 January 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. SoWhy 12:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multihousing Professional magazine[edit]

Multihousing Professional magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable magazine; a search reveals zero coverage in independent reliable sources. A7 was declined by SoWhy. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do think you should mention that I declined it solely because WP:A7 does not cover magazines. Regards SoWhy 14:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are serious violations of WP:COI and WP:PAID happening in this article involving the sockpuppet accounts, LindaHoffman (talk · contribs), ASNicks (talk · contribs), and MHPmag (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 13 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 10:41, 16 January 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Diner[edit]

Maximum Diner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was able to find only a single review of this book. Granted, it's a reliable one in a major newspaper, but we generally require multiple sources, and I couldn't find even a blog review to get said multiplies. Can anyone help and find few more reviews? Otherwise this fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) I am afraid, and I can't even think for a good target for merge/redirect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 13 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 10:39, 16 January 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. SoWhy 12:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Deschaseaux[edit]

Pascal Deschaseaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notbale business person. 3 news hits and none of them feature in depth coverage and I can find nothing about him beyond that and primary/PR type stuff. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 17:10, 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 10:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 January 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. SoWhy 12:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Patcher[edit]

Lucky Patcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable Android application. MER-C 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:00, 10 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 10:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly agree. This app has pretty much little significance, and I really don't understand why it's here. 404House (talk) 01:33, 18 January 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. SoWhy 12:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klaipėda Choirs' Association "Aukuras"[edit]

Klaipėda Choirs' Association "Aukuras" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable local choir association Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:59, 10 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 10:30, 16 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Palmer (psychologist)[edit]

John Palmer (psychologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exponent of Parapsychology (e.g. ESP). Sourced to CV on Parapsychology organization. Coverage in BEFORE not much more. Does not seem to meet WP:PROF, and is mostly published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 16 January 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. SoWhy 12:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inayat Husain Thaver[edit]

Inayat Husain Thaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 16 January 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ellsworth Jones[edit]

Ellsworth Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

small-town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN, also served in World War 2 but doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER, all sources are from the local newspaper (which to be clear is NOT significant coverage in multiple sources). Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All mayors certainly are not notable, that's why we have WP:POLITICIAN guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Rusf10 said, mayors are not automatically notable. Per notability guidelines for politicians: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". There are certainly exceptions; mayors of major cities like NYC, Tokyo, or London almost certainly meet notability requirements, but from WP:POLOUTCOMES: Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of a mayor is irrelevant for a deletion forum, since notability is never a policy-based determinant for deletion of a mayor, see [[WP:IGNORINGATD}].  Note also that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to tell you but WP:IGNORINGATD is part of an essay which is neither a policy nor a guideline. If notability is irrelevant for a mayor, I guess that's the case for everything else too, deleting anything must be against policy.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD is a policy and WP:IGNORINGATD is "an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Deletion policy."  So for starters, the premise here is at least erroneous. 
Even if WP:IGNORINGATD were an essay, the post has shown no elements of WP:IGNORINGATD that do not represent policy, so the "essay" comment is baseless misdirection. 
The post continues with WP:OSE hyperbole that policy based treatment under ATD of mayors is the equivalent of non-policy based treatment of other topics considered under WP:Deletion policy.  The topic here is a mayor, not OSE topics outside the scope of ATD. 
As for the hyperbole, as stated at hyperbole, "Hyperbole may...be used for...exaggerations for...effect."  "The use of hyperboles generally relays feelings or emotions from the speaker".  Unscintillating (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of WP:AADD (which contains WP:IGNORINGATD) "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.". If you want to dismiss someone's argument for citing a guideline (the widely accepted WP:N guideline), why don't you hold yourself to the same standard??? You can't cite [[WP:OSE] either, for the same reason. The only policy you actually cited is WP:ATD, which you have a really bizarre interpretation of (ie. nothing can be deleted).--Rusf10 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:43, 16 January 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. SoWhy 12:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem John Shakir[edit]

Nadeem John Shakir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant in coverage. Clearly not notable per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:30, 16 January 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) 00:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wassana Im-Em[edit]

Wassana Im-Em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not for free profile. Nothing significant in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:29, 16 January 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. SoWhy 12:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Mendes[edit]

Bonnie Mendes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant in WP:RS. Almost sourced with Catholic sites like UCA. No independent coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:37, 16 January 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. J04n(talk page) 16:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of blacklisted keywords in China[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of blacklisted keywords in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Huge tangled mess of unsourced garbage. Too little of this is verified or verifiable. The article has been tagged for OR for ELEVEN YEARS with no improvement. List openly admits to being fluid, incomplete, and difficult to verify (" It is known that trying from different locations inside and outside China, on different search engines, and at different times can yield different results."), meaning there is no point in even having a list if so little of its content is even consistent. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dandv (talk · contribs), the closing admin might give less weight to your AfD comment under WP:JUSTAVOTE. Would you explain your rationale for retention in more detail so that does not happen? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:25, 18 January 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. Due to low participation, this is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Mz7 (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Cross[edit]

Cyber Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two-line stub unsourced since 2007, fails V and N. See the analogous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross Wiber. Sandstein 10:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 11:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Giant Bomb, Video Game Den Magazine Review, Computer and Video Game Magazine Review - The two magazine reviews should be enough to prove notoriety. I also feel like the old AfD for Cross Wiber was poorly reviewed, as there are several magazines that published reviews, that can be easily seen by one look at Mobygames Reviews for Cross Wiber. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 Talk 03:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 16 January 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) 09:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redbox Movie Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Redbox Movie Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously nominated for deletion a few years ago resulting in no consensus. I think its time to revisit. That discussion was flooded with SPA accounts who did not make policy arguments to keep. As stated in the previous discussion, this is not a notable award and does not meet WP:GNG. Also it seems that redbox no longer issues this "award" as the most recent mention of it I can find was from 2013. I know a merge was mentioned as a possibility in the previous discussion, but I really don't see anything worth keeping here since it only existed for two or three years. Keeping everything here would certainly create WP:UNDUE in the Redbox article. Rusf10 (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 16 January 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) 05:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of virtual private network services[edit]

Comparison of virtual private network services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR concerns. There are no references as to whether these VPN providers are notable, or why these attributes are relevant. Possibly a WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 16 January 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. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. Matters regarding the article can continue to be discussed on its talk page if desired, including the notion of a merge. North America1000 10:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union[edit]

Struggle against political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a POVfork of Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, and the differences are WP:SYN. It is a monograph by a WP:SPA with numerous dodgy or self-published sources, so I think deletion is the correct response rather than an attempt to merge. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INTERESTING. You do not address the issue at hand, which is that this is a WP:POVFORK. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mistake me, JzG. As I state above I believe this is an independently notable topic, ie. more than a POV fork. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that most of the edits - almost all, n fact, are by a user:Psychiatrick, and I see POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is sub-section of this page included in main page: Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union#Struggle_against_abuse. The summary is very brief, and I do not see any significant overlap. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, both pages are properly linked (see here). My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, user Psychiatrick is not an WP:SPA, and he made good significant contributions to the project [29]. Telling that page should be deleted because it was created by him is unreasonable. Yes, he created a number of reasonable pages on related subjects because this is area of his expertise and/or interest. This is not a content fork, and not a POV fork. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has valuable information and sufficient sources, may be references style change required. Glycomics123 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC) — Glycomics123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see any reasonable way to add such huge amount of non-redundant content to main page on the subject. This sub-page has maybe only ~10% overlap with main page if anyone bothers to check.My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 16 January 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) 00:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jung-min Kim[edit]

Jung-min Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At this points, fails WP:NFOOTY since he never played a match in a fully professional league. This might change, but as soon as it did not he is non-notable for us. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Soccer-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I find one article (title: Next Generation 2016: 60 of the best young talents in world football) in the Guardian about Kim Jung-min. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is much better, I would say one or more articles of this level, and we can probably keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 20 January 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. Sandstein 20:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genius (flashcard software)[edit]

Genius (flashcard software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software product of questionable notability, the website appears long dead, could find no coverage in third-party refs. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:54, 16 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Casado[edit]

Isaac Casado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. There are three sources, of which two are primary sources simply confirming him winning different prizes (e.g. one confirms he was one of 35 people to get a specific scholarship from Georgetown). A search on Google News finds three relevant hits, two of which are purely incidental mentions that don't provide any biographical information. No prejudice for future recreation of this article. Chetsford (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 16 January 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. Sandstein 20:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Martinez[edit]

Joseph Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now that the Afd of Luis F. Castro has concluded that the award of a single DSC to a Puerto Rican is insufficient for an article, it's time to clear out part of the list of Puerto Rican recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Badel Hernández Guzmán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elmy L. Matta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Efraín Figueroa-Meléndez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ramiro Ramirez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reinaldo Rodríguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 16 January 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) 05:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reformation Bible Puritan Baptist Church[edit]

Reformation Bible Puritan Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:FRINGE group, and doesn't appear to be a notable one. The only independent coverage I find is [31]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:47, 16 January 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. Sandstein 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pigment (software)[edit]

Pigment (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long dead software program, could not find sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:27, 16 January 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. Already deleted G5 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Treeium Inc[edit]

Treeium Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Haven't been able to find sources that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG SeraphWiki (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 16 January 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 College of Wooster#Student life. Given that there is consensus to not keep, but not consensus for deletion. Sandstein 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of student social organizations at the College of Wooster[edit]

List of student social organizations at the College of Wooster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of this content is individually notable. Cramming it into one article does nothing for notability or sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:31, 16 January 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. Sandstein 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ghana (1966–79)[edit]

History of Ghana (1966–79) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant to other articles on Ghana's history. Totally arbitrary set of years (why 1966-79 specifically?). Only one source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 05:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking why there is a separate article for these years and not other years?Smmurphy(Talk) 21:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Why these totally arbitrary years and no others? Why should this content not just be merged back into the overall History of Ghana article? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I described why these years are not arbitrary, I'm sorry that you think that they are. I don't know why there isn't an article for all of the other periods of Ghanaian history, but there are two articles for two of its colonial periods. I think the reason the content has its own page is that the History of Ghana article is very long. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for pointing us to that article. I see that the nominator is very careless when it comes to nominating articles for deletion. This[32] surely is one of his greatest moments, and will go down in history as one of the worst nominations for Afd. I'm always concerned about those who do not edit much but simply driveby and tag or nominate articles for Adf. This is a silly nomination and evidently the nominator has a long history of doing this.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:28, 18 January 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. As others have noted, the content of this article was indeed a word-for-word duplicate of the content at The Unknowns. Mz7 (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Punk[edit]

Black Punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable hacker group. May be the case of WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:27, 16 January 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. (non-admin closure)  samee  talk 09:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinit Singh[edit]

Vinit Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Article has minimal sources and the handful found in a search are about the musical talent show where they finished 2nd. Passing mentions as a playback singer after that. Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:22, 16 January 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 Community boards of the Bronx. Content remains behind the redirect for very selective merge to the target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx Community Board 8[edit]

Bronx Community Board 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a merge/redirect per SoWhy, below. But, it would have to be a very selective merge. My first thought was all that would be useful would be a list of communities covered, but I see that's there already. Maybe just bring over the demographics info, and a link to the CB's website. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 24 January 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. There is a consensus that sources are avaiable for use, even if they will be predominently in Rissian. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim society №3[edit]

Muslim society №3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability asserted, no sources found. A7 declined for no reason Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cunard: You seem to have confused the AFD for the article. IF you find sources, put them in the article, not in the AFD. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TenPoundHammer: Cunard said The article lists two external links. Try again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 11:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World[edit]

Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally adding page originally separately nominated with identical rationale; list is obviously dependent on the parent topic article and should have been bundled (see WP:MULTIAFD). postdlf (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of recipients of Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found these independent international sources, which I will add in coming days:
Bogger (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone evaluate the sources presented? I note several tabloids.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:11, 16 January 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. Sandstein 12:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March of Empires[edit]

March of Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure this iOS mobile game readhes WP:GNG. It's also written like a fanbook. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: Clash of Clans, Game of War, March of Empires, Action of Things? :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Salvidrim! - Finally figured it out. Forge of Empires is the one I always see those stupid commercials for. That's what it was, not this game. So it looks like I'm unfamiliar with this game then. Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 16 January 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. Most, but not all of the arguments in this discussion for both deletion and retention include Wikipedia guideline- and policy-based rationales. Ultimately, this discussion has received ample input, and no consensus for a particular action has surfaced. A fair amount of discourse regarding the article's content has occurred here, such as limiting its scope, improving the management of the article, and moving it, among others, all of which can be continued on the article's talk page. North America1000 11:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. This article really conveys no information that cannot be found on RT's own pages, including but not limited to https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/ . If someone wants to find films with 100% on RT, surely the best option would be to go straight to RT instead of assuming Wikipedia has an article on the topic. This article feels redundant.
  2. It gives really no impression of encyc value - all encyc information on this topic can be found at List of films considered the best. I can understand that we have an article about this list and this list, but those are static. This article, however, is in constant need of dynamics and updating to current events - feels almost like a news feed providing extremely blank and pure information.
  3. Also, the list is wayyyy too long. Is it truly a notable accomplishment for a film to get a 100% rating when it is this common? Who says it is? Who says that 100% is a famously notable achievement?
  4. It smells of publicity for RT. I know RT is a widely respected website/publisher, but is this kind of detail really due? Of course, as said before, the article content cannot be undue to RT since that's what the title specifies - however, the title and thus the article as whole feels out of place in an encyc environment. RT is big, but are they this big?


(I know it was kept previously and are knowingly creating another. I have considered all past arguments.) Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 00:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, we need to have a distinct space about 100% ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. It's too much to be captured at the website's article, but we can certainly reel in the list and boost the prose further. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Hmm, both these suggestions sound good for making the list less arbitrary and static. Make sure a 2nd source reports it as 100%, have a minimum number of reviews, and have a minimum time it must stay at 100%. Would surely make it more wikilike. That's what I'd suggest if this is kept. However, I don't change my stance, I still advocate deletion. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 22:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying this in multiple discussions, as though (a) it were even true, which doesn't appear to be the case, and (b) it addressed the objections being raised. Could you please familiarize yourself with policy on this? Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is that substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishes notability. See wp:gng. Erik has detailed some of the sources covering this subject and they clearly satisfy the criteria. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't advocate the deletion of already existing titles, I would certainly not oppose this list's reduction if that is the general sentiment. Its survival is the primary objective. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is intended to be a continually growing list, one solution to the problem of excessive length may be a split into two lists, with 1999, 2000 or 2001 selected as the end-of-first-list, start-of-second-list years. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not a cutoff by number of reviews or an arbitrary number that we can copy from elsewhere? For example, in statistical sampling, 32 is the minimum sample size. Alternately, List of highest-grossing films cuts off at 50 movies. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since Rotten Tomatoes was launched in August 1998 and, as has been already pointed out, the majority of the titles with heavy multiplicity of reviews were appended in the 2000s, it would seem that most of future additions will come from the future, rather than from the past. Thus 1999–2000–2001 may be considered appropriate points of division.
In proposing a list of pre-2000 and post-2000 films, I was primarily concerned with retaining a comparable chronological sorting capability between the two lists (each list would be forced into its own separate sorting by alphabet and by number of reviews). All such proposals are, of course, dependent on the survival of the list and consensus for division into separate lists. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but establish a review number criteria above 5, and sort the list starting with the 100% movies with the most reviews on top. Googinber1234 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I take it you're not interested in the many ways that have been proposed which would cut the list down? What about the list, with those restrictions, would be indiscriminate? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful list for film buffs, and like Erik says it has the coverage, but the cut off point needs to be more like 15 or 20.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dpm12 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Cooney[edit]

Eugenia Cooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe we have a case of WP:BLP1E here. The subject is a YouTube presenter, and the majority of coverage available about this subject in mainstream reliable sources seems to focus on an October 2016 petition to ban her from YouTube due to her underweight appearance: see [40]. In fact, I couldn't find any reliable sources which discuss her outside of the context of this incident, and as a result, I think this is a fairly clear-cut BLP1E case. Beyond that, I would also not consider the available coverage as satisfying either WP:ENTERTAINER or the WP:GNG. Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 16 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharestates[edit]

Sharestates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions, routine news, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by an account currently indef blocked for undisclosed paid editing; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Draykyle. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beemer69: Hi- UPE stands for undisclosed paid editing- sorry for the jargon. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcc: Not a problem. :) My brain kept reading it as "UPI." sixtynine • whaddya want? • 22:12, 18 January 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The White Company (retailer)[edit]

The White Company (retailer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Potential sources that mention The White Company are limited to press releases about profitability or the opening of new locations. Much of the coverage of the company mentions Chrissie Rucker, but per WP:NOTINHERITED The White Company is not granted inherit notability by it's founder. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd possibly advise against using the Daily Mail as a source for article improvements though, see WP:DAILYMAIL --Topperfalkon (talk) 13:06, 17 January 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.
More