The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Durward Griffin[edit]

Charles Durward Griffin (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 see any news coverage. Not sure they are notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no significant claim of notability, no references, and no notable hits on google, news, or scholar searches. --HunterM267 ^talk 23:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced bio. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable source I found online is of his dad's obit. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article created by apparent single-purpose account with no sourced indication of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. Timothy Garvey[edit]

W. Timothy Garvey (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. Reads like a CV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It reads like a CV because it was copy-pasted from the faculty web page. Garvey meets WP:PROF with a named chair at the University of Alabama School of Medicine and a respectable publication record. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (top citation count on Google Scholar = 1129, top as first author = 573, many other papers with over 100 citations) and #C5 (the named chair), as already discussed by StarryGrandma. Thanks to StarryGrandma for removing the copyvio from the article and making it look more like a proper stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if somebody will fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Did the nominator carry out WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Olympic medalists of African origin[edit]

List of European Olympic medalists of African origin (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 conflation of "black people" (Colin Jackson) and "people from Africa" (Alain Mimoun) and original research, and is not a reasonable list topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is divided between African and Americas background.

• Keep - I am sorry, but did I miss something regarding Race stated within the list? I didn’t see anything regarding "black people", just the names of the individuals who won either “Gold” – “Silver or “Bronze” in the individual events and their representative countries. All from the continent of Africa. The list is well maintained, realizing that it is still recently new, variable – and sourced. Are not these the guidelines for inclusion here at Wikipedia? ShoesssS ^Talk 22:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the problems have been fixed by Backij, but there are more; Gwladys Épangue was born in France. These problems exist because the list is WP:OR, and is a categorization that isn't a good topic for a WP:SAL article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhan Beleniuk, for example, was born in Ukraine of one Ukrainian parent and one Rwandan parent. Given his parentage and place of birth, his origins are just as much Ukrainian (if not more so) as they are Rwandan.--TM 12:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what is wrong with that, she is French with Senegalese background --Backij (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List title specifies "of African origin", not "of African background". TeraTIX 05:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unencyclopedic. Could a full length article be written on the topic? I don't think so. Therefore, it is a non-notable combination of various characteristics.--TM 17:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments I am not sure I get this list, it feels very WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unencyclopedic cross-categorization – see WP:NOTDIR #6. TeraTIX 05:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: you could make an argument for European athletes that were born in Africa, but why does this need to exist? Unless we were planning on doing a series of articles on athletes that we all born overseas (Even then, it'd be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN effect.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per ShoesssS. This is a list which passes WP:LISTPEOPLE. I don't see a problem here. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial intersection of nationality, race, and sport accomplishments. The criteria for inclusion is rather vague, and even with the clean up there are still many individual articles that have no mention of supposed African ancestry. A pretty clear example of WP:LISTCRUFT. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - List of European medalists of Asian and Oceanian origin should probably also be nominated for deletion if this discussion is closed as such. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Usually, I'd go with a minority-opinion merge, per WP:ATD, but if there's no WP:RS at all, then nothing meets WP:V, so merging isn't possible. Anybody who wants to add reliably sourced information to Rainie Yang is free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing for Happiness[edit]

Wishing for Happiness (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)

Has no reliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 20:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of the references are YouTube videos and not reliable sources. 344917661X (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete YouTube is not a source of RS. I would review other album articles by this artist because their sources suffer from similar concerns.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article on Rainie Yang. Vorbee (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Criminal[edit]

Mr. Criminal (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)

Puff piece : contains a spammy link and a bit of advertising for his clothes, sacrificed a lot, rise to prominence, his fame. This article also contains a bunch of unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 20:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vanity article with peacock language and self promotion. References are self downloads. I'm not sure how this survived AfD 12 years ago other than our standards then rewarded showing up in google searches, rather than the more defined criteria that it takes to establish GNG and WP:MUSIC. In fact, upon second glance, I see one of the keep editor's comments at the time was "MySpace profiles are a good way to gauge the indie scene...", which right there says everything one needs to know about how WP:MUSIC criteria has evolved. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article.Accesscrawl (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Body on Pen-y-Ghent[edit]

Body on Pen-y-Ghent (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)

Quite simply, Wikipedia is not news. Purely local happening. The references are thirteen years or more stale. The event had no lasting impact. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles involving unidentified corpses. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lytton

What is the difference other than the fact that she was Asian? Are white people more worthy of a Wikipedia article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_bias_training — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacentaeons (talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Information in article sounds like it should be in the local paper. No significance to notability of victim and appears to also be a cold case. Agree with RHaworth that Wikipedia is not for news. — Mr X ^☎️ 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this article was nominated for deletion almost as soon as it was started. I believe this was premature. I would urge everyone to reread this article as you probably read an early version. This is a notable event which received national attention in the form of Guardian and BBC articles as recently as a few days ago (see references). This article concerns the discovery of the body of a foreign national in a bizarre location which is notable in itself. It also triggered an international investigation and this event is therefore not a purely local happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacentaeons (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 10:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charakonda[edit]

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

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

I do not understand this. Has no sources. Is it a business park, or a town? What are they fighting for? » Shadowowl | talk 20:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think I have figured out the cause of the confusion.
  1. There used to be a Charakonda village in the Vangoor mandal in the Mahbubnagar district of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh (see 2011 census report for district)
  2. Then in 2014, the Andhra Pradesh state got split, creating a new state of Telangana. And more recently, in 2017, the districts in Telangana got [completely revamped (which means all pre-2017 sources became pretty much useless as far as administrative division information goes).
  3. Now, there is a Charakonda mandal in the Nagarkurnool District in the Indian state of Telangana (see District website, which I expect to be the most up-to-date source)
  4. To add somewhat to the confusion the Charakonda mandal itself contains a Charakonda village, which possibly corresponds to the village listed in point (1)

Now, even if the above is a convincing story to us, we cannot write it up in mainspace without running into WP:SYNTH issues. So I suggest we just have a one-two line article based on point (3), and drop a note on the talk page that editors should ignore any pre-2017 sources since even if they are otherwise reliable, they may not reflect the current situation. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Updated article based on above information. Since the district sub-division is verifiable, it should be a non-controversial keep per WP:NGEO. @Shadowowl: if you agree would you like to withdraw the nomination? Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A consensus for deletion has been established. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria (1748)[edit]

Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria (1748) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am uncertain on how we can write a comprehensive article on a child that was nearly stillborn. I am having quite a bit of trouble with finding valid sources on this child that mention her for more than a few short lines of text. Also, I have little faith in the reliability of "mariaantoinette.npage.de." This article relies almost exclusively on this one reference. I am unsure of who owns the website and where they obtained their information. Furthermore, judging by the template at the bottom of the page, we do not have articles on a significant number of longer-lived Austrian archduchesses. If this page is to exist, then it should be a redirect. There is simply no possibility that this article can improve from its present state as a stub-class article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Being a stub article is not grounds for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested this article for deletion as I do not believe that the subject of this article is sufficiently notable. She does not seem to have any coverage outside of works about her parents. Most of those mentions are rather brief, and do not indicate that she is independently notable. The subject of an article is not notable merely because they are or were related to a notable subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – In that she only lived about 12 hours, back in the 1700's, and we are still talking about her….I believe that is notable. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is barely discussed at all. Outside of biographies of her parents, she is only mentioned in genealogical websites. When I clicked the JSTOR, the Google Scholar and The New York Times options that this page provided, I found nothing. On Google Books, I found one book that mentioned her. This book described her in two sentences and then quickly moved on to the birth of another child.^[1] ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Susmuffin. I am not disagreeing with this nomination, hence my comment versus a Keep or Delete opinion. Maybe a Merge/Redirect would be more appropriate? Looking through the Maria Theresa piece I noticed that the was no section with regards to children. This could be a nice start to a new section. Just a suggestion. Regards. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERIT. Had it not been for the notability of her parents her existence would not even be known. Blue Riband► 02:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This infant girl died on the day she was born. There is nothing even vaguely remotely close to notable about her. The article is mainly about how being pregnant with her effected her mother. The current article on the mother of this child has a whole paragraph on her children and pregnancies that presents the issues involved in a much more encyclopedic way than is presented here. This is ludicrous overkill at a level that is not needed in any encyclopedia. I take this up a nothc. If there was a reighning female monarch at the level of actually running the government of her country today the way Maria Theresa was in Austria in the 18th-century, and her 10th or so child died the day she was born, I would still support delete. Of course, for the record, I am also going to oppose creating an article on the first royal child of Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and no amount of "this is the first partly of African descent British royal" is going to persuade me otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A child who died perinatal death is inevitably NN, even where the mother was an empress. We might possibly redirect to a list of her children. The alleged portrait is almost certainly of a token baby, not from the actual body. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the point above that a child who died so quickly is unlikely to be notable. If her death had a considerable impact (and the article as it stands does not seem to show that it did) then a case could be made, but even then it could probably be better covered in her mother's article or possible her father's. Dunarc (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a tenth of 16 children, and she lived for hours? no. Agricolae (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royson James[edit]

Royson James (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, fails WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. The editor whose username is Z0 17:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. MB190417 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As always, a journalist is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his existence can technically be verified by a primary source directory of his own work on the website of his own employer — a journalist does not get over our notability standards by being the author of coverage of other things, but by being the subject of coverage written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Lathrop[edit]

Bud Lathrop (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)

Other than coaching high school basketball for multiple decades and having an 3:1 winning record, I am unable to find anything notable about the subject. — Mr X ^☎️ 17:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page was previously recommended for deletion here and article creator NeelyCrenshaw removed the original AfD here without a discussion on the talk page. — Mr X ^☎️ 17:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Kudoos to the individual Bud Lathrop and sympathies to his family for their loss. He is a hero to his community and justly so. However, for inclusion for an Encyclopedia, I believe we need to be held to standards that show the impact of an individual that extends beyond the limited interactions of a city or State. Looking at the references, supplied by Google News, as shown here [1], I find nothing other than local coverage from the Kansas City Star. Sorry to say, by my standards, this does not meet the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia covering the world. More for a listing in Who’s Who. Again, sympathies to the family. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG in my opinion. I also ipmroved the article a bit and added more sources. Dammit_steve (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as well. Sources demonstrate that multiple, independent and reliable sources have covered the topic in-depth.--TM 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG with sources from Dammit steve. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed that a high school sports coach is not usually sufficiently notable, but this one now has enough coverage in RSs to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Again my sympathies to the family. And to reiterate my feelings that Mr. Lathrop is a true “Hero” to his community, friends and family, this in my “Hearts of Hearts” I do believe. However, I still stand by my “Delete” opinion. I see editors posting updates on this reference or that reference, to his page, showing that Mr. Lathrop is truly “Notable” within his community and the article should be Kept, and they are right, except they are all from a local source. However, as I said before; “…I believe we need to be held to standards that show the impact of an individual that extends beyond the limited interactions of a city or State.” To be included here at Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. Regards……ShoesssS ^Talk 17:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is plenty of coverage of him. Newspapers.com has alot which may not be on Google, such as a story from January 20, 1990 in the the Springfield News Leader. Even if his attention was solely within the state of Missouri (and I am not sure it was), I don't see that as a disqualification from inclusion in an encyclopedia. Coverage exclusive to a small town, maybe, but not across multiple cities, including major cities, within a state. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gowan[edit]

Phil Gowan (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 writer . No evidence of having actually published any books. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Non notable writer, but notable RMS Titanic historian. As the article and the sources says, one of the most important. This is enough to have a wikipedia article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 9:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Alsoriano97 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nautical-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- So he has allegedly done meticulous research into the minutiae of the Titanic. Its sinking was a notable event, but that does not mean that any person who writes about it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep As long as better, third party sources can be used., and the article recast from its currently obituary-type format. Phil Gowan was indeed a good scholar re: the RMS Titanic. RIP, Mr. Gowan.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet GNG or NAUTHOR. Certainly would be notable on Ecyclopedia Titanica or Titanicpedia - but not here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable Titanic historian. NAUTHOR is irrelevant when GNG is met. In addition to some of the good sources already cited, i found https://www.scnow.com/news/local/article_e8e25829-21b1-50f7-9303-ab6fb70ca513.html and https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/a-night-to-remember-a-survivor-forgotten/article_b34ee7ec-868d-11e1-9445-001a4bcf887a.html. In addition to these sources that discuss him in-depth, he is mentioned in dozens of sources on Titanic-related topics [2] whixh all the more raise his credibility as a respected Titanic historian. 106.208.49.250 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets the prof test as a famous hisotrian in his own right. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WriterDuet[edit]

WriterDuet (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)

Seemingly only passing mentions of the subject in notable sources, and write-ups in non-reliable sources. This article created by a WP:SPA seems to fall short of WP:CORP. A preliminary news search didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not an admin, but this may fall under CSD G4. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an original page, content is not a recreation of a previously deleted page. --Denniswriter22 (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, without seeing deleted content neither you nor I can assert that. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WriterDuet is a major competitor (third-largest) in the screenwriting software space, among other software that each have their own pages and are discussed on the Screenwriting software page, such as Final Draft, Celtx and Fade In which is much more minor. WriterDuet's presence in the niche screenwriting software space is also significant online; Knowledge of the space is incomplete and not reflective of the industry as represented online without the existence of a WriterDuet page. --Denniswriter22 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Denniswriter22: Hi there, I see you're new, so, welcome! To clarify, just because other articles exist doesn't mean that this one should. Also, if I'm honest, the sourcing for those other articles isn't great, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for niche screenwriting software. It's an encyclopedia to record what has already been discussed, in depth, by reliable trusted sources. Hope this helps clear up some things, and again, welcome! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drewmutt: Thanks! I meant that screenwriting software itself is a niche product -- and I agree, probably makes sense for the Screenwriting software page to stay and the rest to go (especially since a lot of them are deprecated). I'll turn my focus to that! --Denniswriter22 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I moved this to mainspace from AfC. I did it because I believed it met criterion 1 of WP:NSOFTWARE, specifically "is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field", in this case screenwriting software. I based this on:

-13-paragraph feature on the software on The Wrap [3] in which its significance in China as a Mandarin-language program is examined

-3 substantive paragraphs on the software in a New York Times article [4] in which its gender assessment tool is explained within the context of screenplay gender bias

-2 paragraphs on the software in a Boston Globe article [5]

Further, the most cursory BEFORE search finds additional coverage of more than incidental or WP:ROUTINE character in The Times [6], The Independent [7], Tom's Guide [8], and PCMag [9] with incidental mentions in The Weekly Standard [10] and Daily Dot [11]. The original AfD discussion arrived at a correct conclusion as none of this material existed at that time and was all published after that AfD had closed. Obviously the situation has changed since then, however. While it seems possible-to-probable that the author has an undisclosed WP:COI, the AfC reviewing requirements specifically require reviewers to accept all "article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination" and do not envision us conducting a DIY SPI on editors who submit. Chetsford (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep I found the following [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. While we don't have significant coverage in and of these multiple sources, we do have enough coverage to lead me to think that this notable. The additional sources provided by Chetsford help to support that idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Relisted. My apologies; I didn't know how to relist. (non-admin closure) The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?}. 20:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meddy[edit]

Meddy (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)

Relisted. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?}. 17:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I feel the references within the article provide sufficient suitable sourcing to pass WP:NCORP. If someone has the capability (or a better translator than google!) to look in the local languages that might grant us a bit more detail Nosebagbear (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Its still ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meddy so you can't relist it here. That's now how relisting works. Dream Focus 20:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Here are the entries if somebody wants to make the dab page: Sushmitha Singha Roy, Pranjit Singha Roy. Sandstein 08:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sinha Roy[edit]

Sinha Roy (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)

Surname. A copy in draft (March 2018) by the same author with no sources provided. Article recreated. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS to establish WP:N CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the author[edit]

• May I ask you all to lend me 15 days of time.

Arka (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the article can be improved rather than deleting it.

Arka (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see for it's alt spelling !

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

Arka (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The existence of the last name can be easily confirmed, but there seem to be no sources available that discuss the name as a name, or the community that uses it. Without such sources, we cannot write an encyclopedic article on the subject. I would have suggested converting Sinha Roy into a simple disambiguation page, but wikipedia only has articles on persons that use a variant spelling Singha Roy, so at best Singha Roy would be the dismbiguation page and Sinha Roy could redirect there. Abecedare (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A good amount of time has been given but it hasn't improved the article source-wise. Notability still hasn't been met. It's a little strange in format as it is. Some more sourcing would allow it to be a disambig page, otherwise a straight delete or redirect (depending on thoughts on Abecedare's comment above) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok! I agree with the community. I am moving this page to Disambib "Singha Roy" and redirect the page to it. Its quite clear that this article doesn't meet WP:N, however it is not delete-worthy as well. I am copying the source code to the Draft:Sinha Roy and edit on both the pages so that it could meet notability sometime. I am still searching on the sources and ref. to it if I get one.ARKA (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Done!Now this discussion is closable. I did what I mentioned earlier.ARKA (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dr. Sroy: I have undone your move of the article to Singha Roy(disambiguation) (that's the wrong target in any case). Please let this discussion conclude. Abecedare (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards has been established herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Asinari[edit]

Matthew Asinari (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/WP:BIO Kleuske (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Based upon the talk page, the article was written by the son of the subject. Based upon the usernames involved, it may also have been edited by the subject of the article recently. Dekimasuよ! 03:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small comment: The user in question may not have realized the policy/guidelines regarding editing of articles by their subject, and their rationale for the edit seems to be this. (I have no opinion on anything; I just wanted to provide context.) - Purplewowies (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO main sources used for a lot of it is persons own LinkedIn account. NZFC^(talk)
• Delete fails WP:GNG] and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This subject of this article runs an advertising and branding agency who appears to be going about its normal business activities, servicing clients one of which is a space start-up. I just can't see anything particularly notable or out of the ordinary in that. BronHiggs (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biobor[edit]

Biobor (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)

single citation, appears to function just as an advert. has been tagged as advert since 2011 MartinezMD (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All third-party references to the subject that I have found are to store pages or trivial "market research" listings. --HunterM267 ^talk 16:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It seems like a useful product, but I don't see sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to be included in Wikipedia. Peacock (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stonebridge Park Depot RDT[edit]

Stonebridge Park Depot RDT (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 looks like an accidentally-created copy of ((Stonebridge Park Depot RDT)). Jc86035 (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I produced this RDT, and it is indeed an accidentally-created copy of the template. I thought I had requested that it be deleted at the time, but presumably could not have. It should be deleted. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiebes[edit]

Wiebes (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)

Only one article exists in Wikipedia, the disambig page is useless B dash (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This can be recreated if and when Jacobus Theodorus Wiebes, or some other person with the surname "Wiebes", has an article to list — but we don't need surname lists where only one person with that surname is actually a blue link. I'm willing to reconsider if somebody with access to adequate sources for entomologists can get Jacobus into place before this closes. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete disambiguation pages by just last name are generally deprecated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular websites[edit]

List of most popular websites (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 list serves no purpose other than being hidden advertising for Alexa.

The problems with this List-article, noted in increasing order, are

• The ranking methodology used by Alexa is, at best, questionable.
• The input (data collected from websites), used as basis for producing the output (creating the the ranking list and details), is incomplete to an unknown extend.
• The items found in the list are wildly incomparable from a technical vantage point: Items are individually defined based on incoherent random decisions about what an Item is.
  - Domains and websites are not same.
  - FQDNs and partial domains are not to be merged and split at random per item.
• Any collection, or list, of websites is absolute useless from a utility perspective, when the only commonality is "popularity" (and that even if popularity was a hard metric).
  Seriously! If anyone disagree on that, then please create a "List of most popular physical objects".

-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC) DexterPointy (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article serves its purpose, and will probably get re-created if deleted. I was of the opinion that it will probably get more viewings than List of most-followed Instagram accounts - and indeed, when I checked number of viewers, I found that List of most-followed Instagram accounts only got 52 viewers, whereas List of most popular websites got 233. Vorbee (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Sourced and a perfectly good list topic. Yes, you could find the same information elsewhere but that is not a reason to delete - WP is an encyclopaedia and so should include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this certainly does.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above users. Re. popularity/physical objects, article has a purpose. Any problems with methodology can invite us to use alternative listings, but otherwise report the listing(s) using the best methodology. (Same goes for what counts as a site). If output is incomplete, up to our editors to update it as best as published information allows us. MB190417 (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Drilling into the attempted arguments.

• [User:Vorbee] : "this article serves its purpose, ..."
  : The only purpose having been claimed this far, is its serving as advertisement for Alexa. (Which is actually reason for deletion, not keeping).
• [User:Vorbee] : "..., and [it] will probably get re-created if deleted."
  : Keeping garbage, because garbage will return if removed, isn't a great reason for avoiding to remove the garbage. It's also false, because WPAdmins can pre-block its recreation.
• [User:Vorbee] : concerning page-view comparisons.
  : Your sources for your numbers are unclear to me, so here's something I found.
  Anyway: Traffic alone isn't itself overly indicative of neither article quality nor reader satisfaction.
  Traffic origin and bounce rate for that page would really come in handy here, but I don't know where I can get them (they might not be public), so I have to settle for less.
  A qualified guess (based on WP's own previous statements on WP traffic in general) would be that the vast majority of traffic is sourced by Google.
  In also having an good idea about how search-kn00bs uses Google, then I, as an example for here, did the Google Search [most popular google websites].
  Result: Well, as far as search-intention goes (that's a big woo-woo to Google), then Google partly failed: The top ranked organic result, which I got from that search, was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites (In second position came https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products ).
  Saying: I'm rather suspicious towards the empirical data (page-views) possibly being used for arguing that the page is worth keeping.(I hope it's now easy to see how a high traffic volume could be an affidavit of failure, not success. )
  
• [User:JohnBlackburne] : "Sourced and a perfectly good list topic.", and "include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this certainly does."
  : Allow me to improve that personal opinion objective argument by a little sprinkling, so to have it read: "Eminently sourced and a perfectly wonderful list topic", and "include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this so obviously and most certainly does, beyond any doubt in the entire Universe."
  (I hope John got a sense of humour, and a lack of vanity.)
• [User:MB190417] : "Re. popularity/physical objects, article has a purpose. ..."
  : Smith, I know you're very concerned about purpose (though unclear in this specific context), and that the architect (not editors) may have a job to do, but aside from that: Your transpilation into English wasn't a great fulfilling experience for me; me being just a common reader. I'm far less competent than Mr. Anderson (aka. Neo to some).
  (Anyone not familiar with the matrix will undoubtedly here suspect me of completely having lost my marbles.)

-- DexterPointy (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A list of the most popular websites on the internet is quite encyclopedic. Alexa rating system is used by reliable sources. Dream Focus 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: "Alexa rating system is used by reliable sources." : That's either a false or a meaningless statement. -- DexterPointy (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. It also shows data from another website that measures the most popular websites, so it isn't just an Alexa advert. 344917661X (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful info for people who don't know alexa. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree, not everyone knows about the Alexa ranking website, but pretty much everyone knows what wikipedia is, so people are more likely to find results here. 344917661X (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Observations, from Wikipedia Policy

• WP:NOTDIR : "Wikipedia is not a directory"

States:

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.

Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).

7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions.

This "List of most popular websites" violates both 1. and 7. of "Wikipedia is not a directory".

• WP:OR : "Wikipedia:No original research"

Both Alexa and SimilarWeb (being the only sources for the list) have created their own methodology and techniques. While this undoubtedly has been unavoidable due to lack of any common standard for use, then this does not automatically mean that their methods and operations get to be regarded as acceptable or reliable. In fact, both Alexa and SimilarWeb are private enterprises, and treats their own invented methods and data as proprietary. Needless to say that: validation and verification of any original research (and products springing from such), is impossible without full disclosure (no COI-free peer-review can ever be performed without granting access to what needs reviewing).

-- DexterPointy (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in your reading of WP:NOTDIR. They are not "loosely associated" – their popularity is a key feature of many of them – which is the most popular search engine, for example, or the most popular social networking site ? – and web site ranking is one of the few ways of measuring this as they are hard to compare otherwise, especially across the Great Firewall. It’s popularity is often mentioned when Wikipedia is reported on in particular. And that is the context. If e.g. Wikipedia is the fifth most popular website then the obvious question is which are the four more popular than it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:LISTN, plenty of books/news that discuss this subject, lets play in the snow. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE OMFG, Nominator should go talk to Bruce Willis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.1.74 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice meme :-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable topic for a list. It shows two companies' statistics. Alexa is there not just because it exists or because it's perfectly accurate but because it's the company often used by secondary sources when reporting on web traffic, and we defer to secondary sources' determinations of what's noteworthy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omniscien Technologies[edit]

Omniscien Technologies (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 WP:INDEPENDENT references. A BEFORE search finds nothing other than the WP:ROUTINE. Chetsford (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - almost no coverage that is both reliable and intellectually independent. That includes a check on the former name as well. There was barely routine coverage in suitable sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solemn Camel Crew[edit]

Solemn Camel Crew (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:BAND. Not able to find substantial coverage in credible sources that can help in asserting notability as per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 14:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No doubt created by someone in the band, Anyway no evidence of any notability, Fails BAND & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Article created by the SPA "Jonbear83", who I would imagine is band member Jonathan Brammer, as nobody else would have access to the completely unverifiable statements about their earlier work, or the recording dates of their albums. No reliable (or unreliable) sources exist, and playing the occasional gig on the UK festival circuit doesn't make them more notable than the hundreds of bands doing the same every year. Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CADE ATP System Competition[edit]

CADE ATP System Competition (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's references are either written by the competition organizer, or imply inherent notability derived from the competition's participating theorem provers, or from similar competitions. wumbolo ^^^ 13:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. CASC has been a major event in Automated Reasoning for over 20 years, and has, to a significant degree, shaped the field of Automated Theorem Proving. It has inspired other competitions like SMT-COMP and the SAT Race, with papers acknowledging that influence. There are literally 100s of papers mentioning CASC on Google Scholar ([19] shows 5600 hits, I've only checked the first 120 or so]). Yes, the reports on the competition are mostly co-written by the main organiser, but they have appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific press, e.g. the Journal of Automated Reasoning, AI Communications, and various Springer-published proceedings of A- and A+-level conferences. There are also plenty of papers not by the organiser. This seems to be an ill-informed proposal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this source [20] calls the competition a "world cup of provers", which I believe is a sufficient claim of significance. Not a run-of-the-mill event. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @K.e.coffman: That does not address my notability concerns. wumbolo ^^^ 16:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Credible claim of notability in its field, with appropriate sources to back it up. Alansohn (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alansohn: which sources? Are we looking at the same article? wumbolo ^^^ 18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know. The article I look at currently has 9 sources, 8 from peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings, and 5 of these independent of the organiser. And there is hundreds more on Google Scholar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James P Honey[edit]

James P Honey (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)

Vanity page created by subject of non notable music act - fails Music and GNG Rayman60 (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No third-party sources means deletion. The notability guidelines may or may not be deficient, but they are still applied. Sandstein 09:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edbrowse[edit]

Edbrowse (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)

Previously deleted at AFD, article contains no independent third-party sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 13:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Found No (0) secondary sources for “Edbrowse", as shown here [21]. As such delete ShoesssS ^Talk 14:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Searches are not finding better than forum postings. Absence of the WP:RS coverage which would be needed to overturn the previous AfD consensus. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Hi, this argument for Keep is from the edbrowse developers. We are hoping the edbrowse wikipedia page can be kept on the basis of the fact that edbrowse is in several code distributions or distros: Debian, Arch, FreeBSD, Ubuntu and MacPorts. We feel that for a software package this demonstrates corroboration by independent parties that edbrowse is in widespread use. Why? Distros have resource limitations and only want to include projects that have a user base. We have improved the wikipedia page with up-to-date references to the five package-search results pages. This demonstrates that edbrowse is included. Also, please compare the notability threshhold for Tinyproxy, which, like edbrowse, is free-and-open-source software that lists its distros in lieu of outside press coverage. Thank you. 69.228.171.29 (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry to say, that is the worst argument to make! It shows Conflict Of Interest. As such, DELETE. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can find no mention of it in "news" sources, but for comparison's sake, I can only find one news result (and that over a decade old) searching for "browser for the blind". It is my opinion that the notability guidelines are deficient if this program does not meet them. --Elijah (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked at the article and felt I’d typed man edbrowse by mistake. Complete lack of sources. This really isn’t the right sort of topic that should be put in a global encyclopedia, and the program isn’t going to vanish into thin air just because there’s no article here. I wonder why the developers think a presence here is important? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birdhill services[edit]

Birdhill 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)

It's a service station. There are zillions of those in the US alone. Surely there are better things to write about?

Other than a few websites dedicated to service stations, there are no sources which discuss this topic. If this page is deleted the other articles in this series – List of motorway service areas in Ireland, Castlebellingham services, Enfield services, Lusk services, Paulstown services, Rathcoole services, Galway Plaza, Manor Stone services, and Junction 14 Mayfield – should be PRODed. I've left Barack Obama Plaza separate, because that one seems to have received some actual press coverage. Jc86035 (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all per nom. These services stations are not notable at all. Except for Barack Obama Plaza, as that has received alot of coverage due its namesake. Spleodrach (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, no notability for them. I'd be happy for all to be deleted except Obama Plaza and potentially the list of service areas in Ireland (possible that one picks up enough coverage across the whole set and I'm happy to agree it could be useful) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Spleodrach and Nosebagbear: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doncaster North services – it looks like the articles for the service stations in Ireland are modelled on the series of British service stations, which have existed for at least 13 years. There is an old AFD from 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services, which was closed as keep. (I stand by my preference to delete this one, but Watford Gap services is a good article.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, not all service areas will warrant deletion. Many of the older ones will just build up articles, as well as the occasional focus on the odd one. If this AfD does indicate delete and set a rough consensus on stations I would ask that it doesn't trigger an avalanche of Prods just because they're a station - they will still need to be checked over case by case. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG. It's just a service station with a few stores attached, hardly not a major shopping complex. I'm happy to bundle all the other articles into an AfD for nomination as well (with the exception of Barack Obama Plaza). Ajf773 (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth, once we're concluded here, throwing anything that hasn't had at least one of us say Keep it into PROD. At the end of the week all the ones that survived PROD can go into a bundled AfD (potentially along with anything that didn't get put in PROD to start with - judgement call by nom). This seems the safest/most legitimate way to do it. Just my $0.02 Nosebagbear (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've added PROD to all articles now. I can probably see an bundle AfD being a potential trainwreck as it was for two previous attempts to nominate every UK service area article for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that Ajf773 - you may well be right on the AfD front. Did you prod the Obama Plaza/service areas in Ireland? Just wanted to check as I couldn't find them but you said all - just checking to deProd them if you had included them. As a side note to everyone, the articles are in the "14th July" category, though your computer might show 15th, depending on gadgets used. :) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Meanwhile, coincidentally, I have been building List of historic filling stations and creating new articles on various Filling stations. Are any of these ones architecturally distinctive or listed buildings? —Doncram (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Preferably I'd prefer merging and having one big article but there we are, Like above there's nothing notable about service stations. Fails NOTDIR & GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. There is List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom which is somewhat better than current List of motorway service areas in Ireland; merger to the latter seems reasonable, and discussion about improving that list-article should happen at its Talk page. Some participant(s) here once went apoplectic about my statement at a previous AFD that if there is a Wikipedia article about something, maybe that something was more notable than other somethings not having Wikipedia articles. That may be the case here. Anyhow, coverage of motorway service areas would in my view naturally be better accomplished in list-articles with the service areas presented in geographical order along their routes, and with photos and footnotes (as in the UK list), and with coordinates viewable in a ((GeoGroup)) link to Google maps, and with some sourced description text about each one conveying something about its importance. Better done in a list-article, and with rational discussion about standards at its Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is absurd to suggest that service stations cannot be notable. The article Motorway service area is completely okay, and it is completely okay to split out a list of service areas from it, that is a matter for discussion about article size etc at its Talk page and is not for AFD. AFD about scattered items is not the best place to discuss standards for inclusion in the list-article which can be decided by its editors.

By the way, I removed PRODs on a few articles mentioned above, given that this AFD is ongoing and IMO that merger/redirect to an available, existing list-article, as here, is almost always preferable to outright deletion (except cases of blatant copyvio perhaps). The Ireland service areas list-article was either not PRODed by anyone or else someone else removed the PROD there. --Doncram (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With the content of this article (and many other UK/Ireland services articles) being solely a list of facilities, there is nothing of value to merge. Of course there are a few exceptions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment About the deletion nomination statement, what is wrong with "websites dedicated to service stations" as sources; we generally use webpages on a topic for coverage of a topic. Browsing in the Google searches, I see a lot of hits on business directory type listings and business opportunity mentions, and there are transport and infrastructure fan website mentions such as [link struck out "Could do with a proper online service area near Cashel alright. M7 wipes the floor with Barack Obama Plaza & Birdhill services all between Portlaoise and Limerick."]. There is [link struck out this Revolvy site] (doesn't look particularly reliable, i dunno if it is a wiki) speaking about it having been created as a service area in just 2014, which would go against notability. There's more than I am going to wade through. Can anyone else do some proper searching for anything about architecture and economic development and otherwise? (one or both of those links are on a Wikipedia blacklist forcing me to strike) --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Overwrite with Toontown (disambiguation). There is rough consensus that, at this time, this is redundant to the Toontown (disambiguation) page, which is to be moved to this location. Any still relevant content can then be merged from the history to wherever it is needed. This is without prejudice to knowledgeable editors using the "untapped literature on the topic" and this page's history to create a new version of this article that clearly establishes notability under a new title such as Toontown (fictional city). Sandstein 09:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toontown[edit]

Toontown (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 article fails WP:GNG. I haven't found any non-trivial mentions of Toontown itself. Mickey's Toontown and Toontown Online both have articles and I suggest that whatever isn't in those articles is merged there, with this article changed to a redirect to the article with the most pageviews. Sjö (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Toontown (disambiguation) and/or Who Framed Roger Rabbit; it's not entirely clear whether this page is a glorified DAB page, or about the area in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Toontown (disambiguation) as the article covers more than just Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Aoba47 (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable and move Toontown (disambiguation) to that namespace._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as this article is little more than a DAB page at this point, which we already have at Toontown (disambiguation). I am Quibilia. (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjö, Mark the train, Power~enwiki, Aoba47, Zxcvbnm, and Quibilia: notice of reopened discussion.

• Keep. I will make several signed points below, which you may respond to individually, as desired. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Redirecting to Toontown (disambiguation) is a nonstarter as that put the pages into the WP:MALPLACED work queue. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is also a nonstarter to merge content from articles into disambiguation pages. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. The previous outcome was a case of Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection. Some 25 pages link to "Toontown" and if there is nothing for these to link to then the links need to be removed. Granted, there was some WP:OVERLINKing here, but without any links the articles need a nearby link to a related article that explains what "Toontown" is, or perhaps be edited to explain it rather than rely on a link. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4. The topic is notable and does pass WP:GNG. The Google Books in the early 1990s, following the 1988 release of the film. I don't find the argument that the term fails WP:GNG very convincing, given all these mentions by multiple independent publications. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5. I question the need for a disambiguation page at all, as all of the items on the dab are Disney-related, excepting "Toontown", a nickname for Saskatoon which makes it a WP:TWODABS situation that could be handled by a hatnote. I think Disney made this a valid topic for a WP:Broad-concept article – there is a somewhat amorphous relationship between the articles on the disambiguation page. The idea that the article should "Merge with Toontown (disambiguation)" is another nonstarter. We don't merge content into disambiguation pages. This is more an argument for merging the disambiguation into the broad-concept article and deleting Toontown (disambiguation). If this is indeed a valid broad-concept created by Disney, then that negates the need to remove those 25 links to the topic. Also, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Partial title matches, Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference. Mickey's Toontown and Toontown Online are distinct-enough names that they probably won't be confused with the one in the Roger Rabbit film – or, if they are essentially variants of the same thing then Toontown should broadly overview them all, as it does. Indeed, Mickey's Toontown and Toontown Online would be WP:summary style subtopics of Toontown, and there would only be a need for separate, more detailed articles on Mickey's Toontown and Toontown Online if there wasn't enough space to cover all three in a single article. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and move Toontown (disambiguation) over top of this. I read over wbm1058's arguments very carefully, but I can't accept any of them. The Google books search presented only lists uses of the word "Toontown" in a series of titles on reviews of the Who Framed Roger Rabbit movie. But, there is no coverage about Toontown independent of the subject - why is Toontown itself notable? Have reviewers compared Toontown to other settings in movies, such as the Death Star? Yes, an absurd comparison, but Death Star is an example of a movie setting that does meet the notability guidelines, much as it needs more citations. And why does it? We have detail about its development and its cultural impact. That's the part that confers the notability because it's the material in reliable sources that is independent of the subject, none of which we have about Toontown. A check of HighBeam Research showed only articles about the other subjects of the DAB page. If Disney did make this a topic for a broad-concept article, where are the sources that show this? Where are discussions from reliable sources about Toontown? If they don't exist, then this is not a notable fiction setting. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I read wbm1058's arguments and they haven't convinced me. The argument about what should happen to the page and it contents musn't obscure the most important question: is the article Toontown notable. I still think that it isn't. The Google links contain several duplicates (at least my list) and I didn't find any significant coverage in them, but only mentions without or with very little detail. Sjö (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the question in my mind is: is the area from Who Framed Roger Rabbit notable enough for a stand-alone article separate from the movie? As there are no references, I don't feel that is necessary. The other content here is best handled as part of the DAB page (which can be moved to this location); the content is something of WP:SYNTH. I don't feel like having this article as a pseudo-DAB of "any place where cartoon characters live" is of any value above the existing DAB page at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I hear the arguments about the lack of notability, though I don't follow what makes the Death Star notable without a closer examination of that (on the surface, that seems equally not independently notable from the franchise that created it). Following up on the need for coverage independent of the subject, I then wonder about the notability of the Mickey Mouse universe. That article asserts, The term "Mickey Mouse universe" is not officially used by The Walt Disney Company, but it has been used by Disney comics author and animation historian David Gerstein. So, the term becomes "notable" simply because one author and animation historian coined it? Does the author of the term need to be notable himself? I note that the only reference cited for the biography of David Gerstein is his resume. The difference between Toontown and the Mickey Mouse universe is unclear to me, so if notable, perhaps they should be merged – to whatever the most common name for this is. None of the rebuttals to my arguments have addressed my issues with the "merge" and "redirect" !votes. Lack of notability is a valid policy-based rationale, though, so "Delete and move Toontown (disambiguation) over top of this" is a viable outcome, and really the only viable outcome that's been proposed other than my "keep". I would suggest though, that rather than moving to Toontown (version 2), the broad-concept version should move to Toon Town, to clear the page history for the move of the disambiguation version. Then Toon Town can be redirected to the disambiguation, leaving the broad-concept history available for possible merging to an article such as Mickey Mouse universe. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first think I would respectfully caution you of is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it is quite possible that the Mickey Mouse universe article has the same problems, and upon looking at it I am concerned it might, especially since it's been tagged for possible OR issues. In regards to Death Star, part of what makes it notable independent of the subject includes that we have sources specifically about Death Star itself, not just Star Wars. We have info about how the Death Star was developed, how it was concepted out and how it was made. We also have information on its cultural impact, not just as a part of Star Wars but as a concept itself. If you can establish that Toontown has such coverage about it, like information about how Toontown was developed or its cultural impact from multiple reliable sources, that would definitely help it to meet the notability guidelines. Hopefully that will give you somewhere to go; it's not my intention to get rid of your hard work if it can be kept in any way in accordance with the policy. I would just rather that we can ensure we are compliant with the policies, and if not, then we would have to go forward with deletion. My appreciation to the admin who has continued to relist this article to allow wbm1058 the opportunity to try to have this article retained. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as the primary topic. Then add a redirect hatnote from the film article to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who Framed Roger Rabbit? with a question mark is tagged as a misspelling; the article is actually at Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It's actually framed as a statement. Maybe the fictional creature in the Dr. Seuss book Horton Hears a Who! framed Roger; I don't know as I haven't seen the film. Making Who Framed Roger Rabbit the primary topic is also a reasonable outcome; given the apparent consensus that "Toontown" is not independently notable (and I'm not really sure about the notability myself). But I point out that the current version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit introduces Toontown in this sentence "In 1947 Los Angeles, "toons" act in theatrical cartoon shorts as with live-action films; they regularly interact with real people and animals and reside in Toontown." That article doesn't explicitly explain what Toontown is... it relies on readers to click through the link to the topic: "Toontown is the anthropomorphic city where animated cartoon characters, known as Toons, reside.", per the lead sentence. I'd suggest that deletion isn't necessary – simply redirect to Who Framed Roger Rabbit so that at least that lead sentence can be merged into Roger with proper attribution in the edit history. wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand; delete the disambiguation page, as it basically lists variations on the same concept, rather than collecting unrelated topics. If anything, Mickey's Toontown should be merged into this article as a subtopic, as it is clearly derived from the Roger Rabbit Toontown concept. There is untapped literature on the topic. For example, Priscilla Hobbs, Walt’s Utopia: Disneyland and American Mythmaking (2015), p. 189, noting that Roger Rabbit "is more "adult" than the usual Disney fare" with "themes of sex, violence, and innuendo", which Disney addresses by including in its Toontown a Roger Rabbit-themed ride that, while "dark", removes the adult elements (thereby "removing the core of the original film story") and replaces them with a more child-friendly "damsel-in-distress rescue story"). Thom Andersen, in his video essay, "Los Angeles Plays Itself", describes Toontown as a "cartoon version of Chinatown". There is, therefore, more that can be done with respect to the conceptualization and evolution of this as a concept. If this is not kept, it should be merged into Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and section-redirected there. bd2412 T 15:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick question, since you seem to have an understanding of relevant sources; are any of the untapped sources about Toontown or have at least a full section on Toontown, or just make passing mentions? It is good to see there is some information, but the sourcing needs to be in depth or we risk giving WP:UNDUE weight by giving a full article to something that just has a couple of passing mentions in sources about the movie specifically. I'm all for keeping this article if we can show that there are such sources, and that they are reliable. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters. Likewise for List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (chronological). Sandstein 09:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical)[edit]

List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical) (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)

All of the information in this list is also contained on the main list. Since the list can be sorted, there is no need to keep a separate article. Dolotta (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-

related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (chronological) back into List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters - easiest way would be to subst the chronological list into the main list, maintaining the two sublists as redirects for history/attribution. Since tables are now sortable, there's no need to maintain two separate lists. ansh666 07:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dolotta, you seem to have made a mistake in viewing the pages. If you look at List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters, the entire Chronological list is from transcluding List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical) to that page. Similarly the geographical list is transcluded to the page as well. I did this because the entire page was having difficulty being edited due to technical issues of length, but the split wasn't. And combining the Chronological and Geographical information into a single table led to the information being too wide for one table in all of the browsers I was using. (And yes, I'm using *I* here, the entire setup of these pages was done by myself.)Naraht (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there are any current technical issues regarding length -- there are around 1200 pages in article space that are larger than the current size of the three articles combined (see Special:LongPages). That being said, considering how long this article has been around I would be just fine with Ansh666's route of substitute and redirect, if you will. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The question to me is 'what does that solve?' And given the split into the two discussions and neither of them is a clean delete, should this be closed as no concensus and the discussion be moved to List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters?Naraht (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (geographical) and (chronological) as WP:CFORK and Reorganize List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters tables so the first section looks like List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters which organizes by state, and Alpha Phi Omega can organize by Regions. "Move national roll number to one of the columns afterwards. Retain the second chronological table where it is arranged by founding date, but shorten it to year (use DTS to retain month and day information while displaying year). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC) updated 16:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• AngusWOOF So you would like them merged back to the same page, but the Geographic one should be split into 11 different tables. And the chronological table (which is larger), the only change would be to reduce the displayed information, but in a manner that would increase the amount of raw code? Note the split was done in the first place to avoid a WP:PAGESIZE issue.Naraht (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend retaining the single table and simplifying it. WP:FRAT has ((FratChapter)) or ((FratChapter2)) templates that can be used. While the template itself may be clunky, they do show which columns are commonly presented, and those seem only to care that the group is currently active or not, and not their entire active/inactive history, although that could be added to the Notes column. The geographic one is only useful if there are plans to show the 11 regions on a map or if the chapters are logically divided by state. Sorting by founding year or national roll number is also already accommodated by the main list. I noticed that that the roll number presented and the founding date doesn't always line up but can be sorted nevertheless. You'll notice on their website, they just list a single table and not worry about geographical, leaving that to be a sortable key. Alumni chapters and other types of chapters are presented separately. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I considered both when constructing the table and rejected them since they didn't contain all of the appropriate information that I had. And given that ((FratChapter2)) only has a single usage, it doesn't seem like a standard. (And if they would be counted as a standard, that should be looked at in WP:FRAT, not here, I believe). The chapters are not logically divided by state, either in the current Regional/Sectional structure which was for the most part put into place in 1967, and the new one which will be put into place in 2018. For example, SUNY-Buffalo and CUNY aren't in the same region in either setup. I *believe* the last time they were in the same part of the organizational structure was in the 1950s. Yes, the founding date and the roll number don't always line up, but with two exceptions which I can go further into, they are close. Both are currently sortable, I believe. And given that the national Alpha Phi Omega website has changed the software and output of the list of active chapters twice since the wikipedia article was created, I'm not sure that is useful. (Also, without additional work, accessing the inactive chapters there is painful.) I don't know if you noticed, but the website list of active chapters is nowhere listed as a reference. (The national magazine, the torch and trefoil, OTOH, is.) As for whether a map of regions or sections should be shown, I'm open to it.Naraht (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, none of your suggestions seem to deal with the original proposal for deletion which I still believe to be a misread of the duplication between the pages caused by one of them being transcluded into the other.Naraht (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to rename/move the geographical and chronological to the template mainspace as they aren't really articles in themselves. They are more like those family trees or character tables. Having them as actual separate articles just screams of content fork. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did not consider that, but would quite willingly do so if it would straighten things out.Naraht (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I understand why you were talking about transclusions, that would simplify things. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff)

So what now?Naraht (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating vote to Move to Template:List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical) The original AFD was because of the content fork which is now restructured to not be a problem. Dolotta is that okay? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: that doesn't really solve anything, just converts them into redundant templates instead of duplicate articles. ansh666 18:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Ansh666. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be up to Naraht to make the two tables different enough to keep separate. If the entries have the same columns, then yes, that's redundant and should be removed. Regardless, the original article names aren't needed. I don't think we need the region and section numbers. But what might be more interesting is getting together a pinpoint map of the chapters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC) updated 22:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The common columns are number, chapter and school. Those seem to me to be the key indexes for a chapter. The primary question is with those indexes and without the region and section, is there any reason for the Geographic at all? I'm not sure what data would be needed for a pinpoint map of all 300 active chapters, much less the 700 chapters in total.Naraht (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there's a need for a separate geographic if the main list does its job. If anyone's interested in constructing the map, they would need the GPS coordinates and a United States map; they can look at List_of_Kalyeserye_episodes#Map_of_episodes for sample entries and use Module:Location map/data/United States of America, looking up the GPS for all the colleges. That's a lot of work though, and if we're the only ones putting it together, could be original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Merge and use table sorting so readers can arrange the data as they need.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge seems like the best option.^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Use table sorting/collapsing to keep the appearance neat. Blue Riband► 17:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Maine, 2018#Democratic primary. Consensus to not keep, no consensus to delete outright, so redirect it is. Sandstein 09:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Ringelstein[edit]

Zak Ringelstein (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)

Candidate for US Senate without significant, independent coverage. Not that it should matter, but though Ringelstein is the Democratic nominee, he is very unlikely to win the seat against a popular Independent incumbent and thus we don't have to worry about having to recreate it anytime soon. TM 12:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the election article. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United States Senate election in Maine, 2018 as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates to the US Senate (and other candidates for federal office). Any details about the campaign can be added to the election page. --Enos733 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the creator of the page. I created it because I believed, and continue to believe, that the sum total of coverage of Ringelstein, including his technology career, his U.S. Senate campaign, his country music flirtation, and his arrest in Texas, qualifies him as notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether or not he qualifies strictly as a politician (and I am unsure if he does or doesn't), he qualifies under WP: BASIC.

In a broader argument that is less grounded in strict Wikipedia policy, Ringelstein's inclusion in Wikipedia serves the interest of the public. Interest in Wikipedia articles about politicians surges in advance of an election, and it is reasonable to conclude that voters are using Wikipedia as a resource in deciding who to vote for. Ringelstein is one of three candidates for a United States Senate seat, and while he faces long odds against a popular and well-known incumbent, it seems only reasonable to err on the side of inclusion when considering this matter. Voters in Maine will inevitably seek out information about King, Brakey, and Ringelstein on Wikipedia, and unless there is a strongly compelling reason not to provide it, we should.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a voter guide or at least is not intended as one. Our primary purpose is to have encyclopedic content that meets existing criteria. It is quite clear that Ringelstein does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as he currently does not hold a political office(unlike King and Brakey who each do). If you want to change the notability criteria so that merely being a US Senate candidate(or any political candidate) merits one an article, you are free to start that discussion- although I don't think you would get consensus as it would open a big door to anyone claiming to be running for any office to get an article. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also would not describe Ringelstein as a "major local political figure" (the other NPOLITICIAN criteria) as he has not held any political office or even been active enough in local politics prior to his US Senate run to merit extensive media coverage. I don't know if his business and teaching careers have been covered enough at this point, but that can always come later. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. If this were enough media coverage to deem an unelected candidate as passing GNG and therefore exempted from having to pass NPOL, then we would always have to keep an article about every candidate in every election everywhere because they always get this much campaign coverage or more. It is not Wikipedia's role to be a comprehensive voter education guide to every candidate in an election — that's Ballotpedia's job, while our job is to have encyclopedia articles about holders of office. Candidates get articles without winning first in two specific situations — either they already cleared a notability standard for some other reason independent of the candidacy, such as having already held another notable office (e.g. Hillary Clinton) or already being notable in some other field (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or the coverage of them explodes so far beyond what's merely expected to exist that there's a credible case to be made that their candidacy is special somehow (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those conditions appears to be true here. Bearcat (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. No independent notability outside candidature. --RaviC (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge any important information per our policy with otherwise non-notable candidates. SportingFlyer talk 21:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete candidates for public office are not default notable for such. Short of that being the case, nothing makes Ringlestein notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Zak Ringelstein would qualify for a Wikipedia page even if he was not running for U.S. Senate, due to his notability in business and advocacy. He received extensive coverage when his company "United Classrooms" was acquired by Rennaisance Learning, followed by a lawsuit filed by Ringelstein against the company. He has received wide attention as an education advocate on platforms like the New York Time, Forbes, and TEDx. Ringelstein also got wide coverage from mainstream media for his humanitarian mission to the Texas border detention centers and the arrest that followed. The U.S. Senate race where Ringelstein is the Democratic nominee is also more noteworthy than an average political campaign, as it is the first federal race in U.S. history that will be decided through a Ranked Choice Voting system, giving each of the candidates more notability. Ringelstein would be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia page aside from anything to do with his candidacy for U.S. Senate. He should not be prevented from having a page just because he is a candidate. User:207maine (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The method of the election has no bearing on the notability of the candidates. Please offer any of the sources you have about his business career. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect per above points. ALPolitico (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SALT based on the editing history of this article and Draft:Zak_Ringelstein. A redirect will merely result in the article being quickly re-created by his fan. This should be salted until at least after the election. The subject fails notability guidelines, and WP is not free advertising space for election campaigns. No redirect is necessary as anyone looking for this politician can search and find him mentioned in United States Senate election in Maine, 2018, as his name is uncommon. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Received recent substantial coverage for his arrest and endorsement by Democratic Socialists. I would expect coverage to only grow with time. Also, as per above, received coverage for his notability in business and advocacy. Definitely doesn't fail WP:POLITICIAN as notability isn't restricted to candidature. Luftfall (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he wasn't a US Senate candidate, his arrest would have gotten zero coverage.(He demanded entry to the border facility as a US Senate candidate.) An endorsement from a group on the left is also meaningless unless one is a candidate. Coverage that flows from his candidacy shouldn't count. Please offer any of the sources you have about his business career. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Three of the five "keep" opinions make no sense in terms of our policies and guidelines, or indeed at all. Sandstein 09:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? top prize winners[edit]

List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? top prize winners (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:LISTCRUFT table of all top prize winners on various franchises of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Notes field contains trivia such as "Last winner since 200x", "Nth winner", etc. Any contestants who meet WP:N on their own have an individual article. AldezD (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—There's no debate that there are sources for some of the individual episodes on which the top prize has been won (although there are several dozen unsourced entries), but there are no sources about the topic of top prize winners treated as a whole. This idea is also wrapped up in that a list of contestants would probably not be viable under the WP:BLP1E rules. AldezD (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page must be not deleted it. And Notes is fine. Marik-modder (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This wikipedia Page must be saved. If we get for example new top-prize where we add a player, version and date?

Vincent1995 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not every game show winner is notable and we certainly don't need to list every single on of them on all regional variants of the game. Also the arguments posted above by @Marik-modder and @Vincent1995 fit more into the category WP:ILIKEIT and offer no real reason against deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ajf773. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question to you (talk if we get for example top prize winner. Where do you think we add him/her? Marik-modder (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a notable topic, with winners referenced with reliable sources. The notes/trivia field should probably go, but major winners of this program are a notable subject and is too large to cover in the parent article Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This, to my opinion, does not fit any of the points listed on WP:LISTCRUFT, which AldezD pointed to as the reason for deletion. Who Wants To Be A Millionaire is a world-wide phenomenon and one of the oldest and most popular game shows to still run in countless countries in the world; winning the top-prize is a rare-enough occurence to decidedly be notable. This is not a list that exists solely for the sake of having it; in less-popular, less-known game shows, top prize winners are certainly notable enough to be listed on that show's article. This list, however, due to the sheer number of national variants, is far too large to be contained in an article about the show itself. I don't know why this information, solely because the list happens to be long, is any less notable than any other top prize winner information in any other article. Or is AldezD going to scour through every single game show article and remove the list of top prize winners from it? To me, this looks like a rather arbitrary deletion request. --Pascal40 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, a prior AfD has failed against this article. For additional arguments for keep, see the archived discussion. I do not see how this content might have gotten any less relevant with time, as, if anything, the show only grew in that time. Pascal40 (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:LISTCRUFT (and, effectively, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA). The list might be salvageable if it was trimmed to just the top prizewinner in each country, but even that is probably an unnecessary article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For me this page must be saved not Deleted it. I can say why, The top prize winners are rarerly trying to win top prize and also old versions are returned + Coming soon 2 new versions they might be have new winners. So This page must be Saved

MaxFinkerBerg1945-2018 (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. See edit by nominator (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remzi Aydın Jöntürk[edit]

Remzi Aydın Jöntürk (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 or reliably sourced in any way. The only sources on the article are IMDB and Pakistan Defense. A Google search yielded nothing. His films don't even seem notable because half of them don't have pages on Wikipedia or even IMDB. Clearly not notable in the least. Ducktech89 (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My own google search turned up six pages of mentions in Google Books, and several mentions in Google News. Additionally, anyone who has directed that many films has had press coverage. It's a question of finding it and understanding the language it is written in. He's mentioned in Turkish (I presume) here, in German here, Turkish here, Turkish again, and so on. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I find it highly doubtful that these sources would be sufficent to be save this article from being extremely unequipped with reliability --- Ducktech89 ^(talk), 3:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

What is wrong with those sources? Also, I am unclear as to why my Google search turn up dozens of mentions and the three sources mentioned above, but when you did it, "a Google search yielded nothing"? There is clearly lots of material out there. He has also directed 60 Turkish films, which makes him notable via "a significant contribution to the field" of WP:NARTIST. Just because you heve never heard of him does not mean he is not notable. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added about a dozen sources to the article. They are mostly mentions of his work and filmography entries, or in this case, a bio on the Center for Turkish Film Studies site. He is frequently mentioned in these sources as an important and notable Turkish filmmaker.96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything relating to his death? That seems to be very enigmatic. If we can get reliable sources about all aspects of his life and work, I will consider cancelling the AFD. -- Ducktech89 ^(talk), 8:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Survivor: Worlds Apart#Contestants. Sandstein 09:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Oskooi[edit]

Shirin Oskooi (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)

It was a redirect for a long time which was several days ago converted to an article. I do not see why she is notable (all references only confirm her participation in the Survivor), but let us discuss. Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirin Oskooi earlier today but did not transclude it properly.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, possibly delete We should not have articles on random reality show contestants. If the other contestants have articles that redirect to the instalment of Survivor that they appeared in, then her article should be a redirect as well. It is clear that she fails to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, restore to redirect. Flat Out (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Also, WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, which if still appearing in red ink it's not for lack of trying. -The Gnome (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails every related guideline. The only coverage in given sources is about her being a participant on that show and as a result the entire article is just a couple factoids related to that. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect subject is not notable. Sro23 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Clizbe[edit]

Kent Clizbe (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)

Typical of WP:BIO1E, the subject of this article became briefly (though far from widely) known, for ostensibly helping expose Fox News guest commentator and self-proclaimed "CIA operative," Wayne Simmons, as a fraud. No sources extending beyond this episode were found, if one discards blogs (e.g. this) and the Daily Mail (i.e. here). Reuters did not even mention Clizbe in its Simmons trial news report. The Gnome (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the record the low notability news commentator who is key to the odd way Clizbe is claimed to have a little notability is almost certainly not notable either, but Clizbe is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panayotis Doumas[edit]

Panayotis Doumas (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)

Very highly promotional article for official in a minor political party that has not yet won a single seat in parliament. Entirely devoted to promoting the party's policies---but we already have an article for the party. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. Not sources about him with in-depht coverage. On the other hand, the party he belongs is a minor, and rather obscure political organisation. ——Chalk19 (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunteck Realty[edit]

Sunteck Realty (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 current NCORP requirements--references are either PR or notices, and the firm is not large enough for any presumption of importance. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was going to send to Afd when it was listed at coin, but now looking at it a second time, I think it is more or less a duplicate of the Bloomberg listing, and has little encyclopædic value. Fails WP:CORP. scope_creep (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Busy, busy, busy. -The Gnome (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, and fails to establish why it has a claim to encyclopedia notability; just another run of the mill company bereft of significance, at the moment at least.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article is about a publicly listed real estate company, founded by an Indian billionaire (as per Forbes list 2009 and 2010) which clearly meets WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED. It has received significant media coverage in mainstream media houses in India and also covered by The New York Times, Forbes and Fortune (magazine) that makes the article meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. And undoubtedly meets WP:NCORP. Performing Google News and HighBeam has huge media coverage.--Eramritasharma (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Eramritasharma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Disagree. The majority of delete votes mention NCORP, not GNG, as the company has accrued some coverage. The main issues is that NCORP and CORPDEPTH need to be met with in-depth, independent coverage, which the article lacks. Stories noting that "Sunteck buys X stake in company Y", "Q4 profits rise for Sunteck by X percentage" or "Market A bodes well for company (Sunteck) B" are not in-depth coverage, even if they come from reliable sources. In addition, it is hard to see how a company with a revenue of $140 million is notable enough for an encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP, no evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:CANVASSING by User:Eramritasharma: [22] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, editing pattern and canvassing suggest that Eramritasharma has a COI and probably an undeclared paid editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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