< 16 July	18 July >

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Kriss[edit]

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

non notable musician. noq (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to find a link to the referenced article about the subject, but it is local news from his hometown, not significant coverage sufficient to establish notability. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as that shown above (local sources are acceptable for GNG except in the case of companies) as well as coverage in Noise Trade and other music publications, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Atlantic306, a local source would be acceptable if there are multiple sources available, but this appear to be the only RS there is. NoiseTrade is NOT a "music publication", it's a peer-to-peer music uploading website and definitely not acceptable as a source.Richard3120 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can only find the single local source mentioned above when searching for articles. Not enough coverage for notability. Gameinfirmary (talk) 17:22, 24 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The result was Speedy Keep #1, nomination withdrawn by nominator, no outstanding deletes. ~ GB fan 15:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf Mining[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Small mining company. Protests and usual stock coverage sites aside I'm not convinced this company passes WP:NCORP Uhooep (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator based on arguments below and based on GNG. Uhooep (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last time DGG had an argument based on a stock exchange last time--Boing! said Zebedee didn't agree. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some companies listed on stock markets with low/insignificant market capitalisations, so being listed shouldn't warrant de facto notabilty in itself, and certainly not all listed companies are notable. I believe it should be based on coverage (beyond stock reports etc) and or whether a company is a component of a flagship indices, such as the FTSE 100/FTSE 250, which in this case it's not. Uhooep (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment (you don't have to say "comment"--that's obvious): I think that in this case it should be kept on the basis of its supercool name. :) Drmies (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had based my argument on it being listed on the LSE; it was pointed out to me there that I was mistaken--it's a subsidiary board, AIM. That doesn't have the same implication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Last time I went for Delete, as the only sources were investment related (mostly Investegate, which is a stock market news/commentary site) and essentially just regurgitation of the company's own RNS releases. The only claim to notability seemed to be "It's a company on AIM", and AIM is not a major stock market - its requirements are so weak, just about any bunch of ragamuffins can get a listing (though it does also host some impressively successful companies, like ASOS, with billions in revenue). Anyway, stop rambling Boing... This time I'm also seeing wider coverage such that there's appeal to more than just stock market nerds, with the conflict with the Sami people even making the BBC, U.S. News & World Report, UPI, mining sources (covering the dispute and not just run-of-the-mill mining reports), and it appears to have attracted significant Swedish coverage. Enough for GNG, I think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some extended coverage of the company in mining industry publications was in the article, and more had been mentioned in the first AfD, although I had to use a lot of Wayback Machine archives (one domain is now a Bitcoin mining site). I also found more news coverage, both Swedish and as Boing! said Zebedee mentions, some English-language, as I had when I helped expand the replacement article in 2013. Much but not all of this relates to the Kallak mine; I have been able to recast the article covering also the company's original foundation and its exploration at Ruoutevara and Ballek. I left out reports of rises in the company's stock, and the article makes relatively little use of sources aimed explicitly at potential investors. I believe I can now advocate for keeping it on GNG grounds. It should be noted that the Kallak, Ruoutevara, and Ballek links all go to articles on the company's mining explorations at those sites, and all predate this article, although probably not the earlier, more promotional article deleted after the first AfD. They provided me with some usable references but are dominated by investor-aimed and press release-based sources. If this article is kept, it might be worth considering redirecting all three to it. Although the years-long dispute over Kallak takes up a large part of the article, I believe there's enough to preserve the company article and overcome the argument that it is known only for that dispute, which I had continued while seeking sources and rewriting; the sources now only visible at the Wayback Machine help demonstrate that the news coverage has not been only for that dispute. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 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 and redirect to Axl Rose. There is consensus that this page is not required; while only two users mentioned redirecting, I am creating a redirect post-deletion per Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and WP:BOLD. Vanamonde (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidfire[edit]

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

Probably not notable on it's own, only had one member (Axl Rose) that went on, band never released a proper album, was only around for a year. RF23 (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The band is not notable except as an early endeavor for Axl Rose, and everything in this article is already mentioned at Axl's. No need for a separate article as the band did not achieve its own notability otherwise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:band. -The Gnome (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per both Doomsdayer520 and The Gnome. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Axl Rose, where this topic is covered. Coverage doesn't look to extend beyond Rose. Don't see a need to delete the history. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Axl Rose#1983–1986: Early years as a categorized ((R to related topic)) and ((R to section)) (try this script) where Rapidfire gets a short treatment. As the title "Rapidfire" is a useful redirect that would be acceptable at WP:AFC/R, there is no reason for outright deletion here. The deletion policy suggests in such cases that we simply redirect boldly per WP:BLAR, see WP:ATD-R. Sam Sailor 15:51, 24 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NovoEd[edit]

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

Unclear where notability lies. Refs give no clue since most appear to be a press release , passing or tangential mentions, relate to financing or are own web-site. Presumably there must be something better out there, but my searches found nothing of substance. In its current state it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've no idea what a program delivery platform is, but the article is promotional and does not say why it is notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Holy marketing babble, Batman! I don't know what either a "program delivery platform" or a "blended learning solution" is, but between the latter unencyclopedic horror, and the use of "to partner" as a verb, this would need WP:TNT if it met WP:GNG, but I don't see that it does, either. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:36, 24 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Galt[edit]

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

Biography of a person with no real claim of encyclopedic notability besides having existed. The only sources here are glancing namechecks of her existence in two books that aren't about her beyond mentioning her name on one page each, which is not enough sourcing to claim that she gets over WP:GNG -- we require substantive sources about her, not just brief one-line acknowledgements that she existed, before a Wikipedia article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For me, the amount of detail available for this person doesn't chime with assertions that the sources are not substantive. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article is both relevant to the history of LGBT persons in Scotland and to the history of women in Scotland. The level of detail in this article indicates that there are further sources to be uncovered and it should therefore be treated as a work in progress. Delphine Dallison (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having just evaluated the article, I believe it pass muster now (it was somewhat shaky earlier). Given the scarcity of literacy in the time discussed, the fact is that there is enough information for two paragraphs (which is far more substantive and significant than a single line) is quite remarkable; in reliable, peer-reviewed, independent sources, too. In short, I think this article passes WP:GNG. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even at the time of nomination the claims of "glancing namechecks" and "one-line acknowledgements" were not accurate and the article has since been improved. The coverage is significant and warrants an article. Thincat (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Even at the time of nomination", the only sources present in the article at all were two books in which the subject's name appeared one time on one page, supporting nothing that would have constituted a notability claim in its own right except "person who existed". I acknowledge that additional sources have now been added that change the equation, but the sources present at the time of nomination were evaluated correctly. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While some editors have suggested a redirect, a significant majority simply argued to delete: furthermore, nobody has discussed the issue of a plausible search term. If anyone is keen on preserving the history, I would be willing to restore this to userspace. Vanamonde (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game soundtracks considered the best[edit]

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

The page has only 15 entries after culling the others that did not have at least three separate sources. Previous discussion on the talk page was to delete the page if it could not be improved, and it's been over three months with no attempt to do so. Other suggestions than being outright deleted are to merge with List of video games considered the best (unpopular on the talk page) or just redirect to video game music. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've debated nominating this before; it's honestly just a really trivial page and its information could easily just be discussed in the articles of the games listed here. ("considered" is also a weasel word—considered by whom?) However, I wouldn't oppose redirecting to video game music. JOEBRO64 22:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Considered by a few publications, but not to the extinct of the List of video games considered the best list. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to save history.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, but sure, redirect to video game music. Part of the reason there are few sources is because some perfectly decent sources originally in the article were thrown out on loose grounds. That said, nom's rationale is somewhat off: a short list is perfectly fine (Honorary citizenship of the United States is a list of 8 people; AFD'ing it for being too short would be silly though). The better reason to redirect is that the sourcing is still weak, at least with some sources contested. There are good, proper, published sources that aren't listicles out there on video game music (e.g. the book "Understanding Video Game Music"), so I don't think it'd take TOO much work to bring the article back if, say, 1 or 2 really solid sources could be found. SnowFire (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Honorary citizenship of the United States is not a subjective list though, so I wouldn't compare their situations. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does that have to do with anything? Maybe only a small number of video games really have highly esteemed scores. Maybe a better version of this article really only talks about 5 games. Besides, this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what these articles are. The list itself is not supposed to be subjective, but rather an objective combination of notable opinions - think Metacritic. And such lists can and will be short sometimes. A musician who is a one-hit wonder is going to have a very short list of critically praised songs, no? Anyway, I believe that there's enough valid content for a decent section in video game music here, which would not be true if it was "subjective" (then we'd just delete it if it was Some Wikipedia Editor's Favorite Music). SnowFire (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because objective facts like that are easy to source and can't be debated unlike some random author who says a soundtrack is cool and that somehow make it a definite source for calling it one of the best of all time? There has to be a lower limit to citing subjective lists like this. I don't mind a small section on the video game music article, but I'd object to including a table there. We could just list the more notable games in prose instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this comes across as original research. Vorbee (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How? Sources are promiently listed showing sources that made the claim. Which part do you feel is OR exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess I'm not quite sure I understand where we're drawing the line here. List of video games considered the best and List of music considered the worst are considered acceptable, but a combination of the two, somehow isn't? (Keep in mind I'm not violating WP:OSE here - we're talking about a precedent here. These two examples have collectively survived 6 AFDs. There's a consensus they should exist.) Sourcing clearly exists - check the article, which is heavily sourced. The nomination isn't helping me understand either. Why is 15 entries not sufficient? Why is 2 sources not enough to warrant inclusion? (Usually 1 is fine honestly.) No relevant guideline or policy was cited either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? A single source (usually by a non-notable author) somehow makes it consensus that a soundtrack is considered one of the best of all time? That's silly to even consider. The List of video games considered the best article went through a major rework last year, and now games have to have five separate reliable sources to be included on the list, so I don't see how they really compare here. Some of the sources in use are questionable too, such as "23 Of The Coolest Ever Video Game Soundtracks" and "Nine Legitimately Awesome Video Game Soundtracks", as both are just opinion pieces by authors with neither claiming the soundtracks to be among the best of all time. If you remove them two, then you are left with just 10 entries, making this even less notable to have an entire article on. The remaining games can just be mentioned in a section on the video game music article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misunderstand, my point was just that usually one source is usually sufficient inclusion criteria. I'm fine with the notion that more than 1 is neccessary here, but I don't see why 2 isn't sufficient. Reading through the talk page, it just seemed like an arbitrarily set number chosen by a 2 or 3 editors. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just defaulted to three because that seems to be the standard for the type of lists; 2 is fine if that's the consensus. We should just never be including games with only a single source for these type of lists, which was my issue with what you said and I apparently misunderstood. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Phediuk and TarkusAB:, who helped with the recent List of video games considered the best list overhaul, for additional discussion and opinions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to video game music I am going to put my WP:BESTSOURCES hat on here. Right off the bat, I'd say NME, Rolling Stone, and Toms Guide should be removed. The first two are opinion pieces and the last is quite shit quality. That leaves just five sources, but I don't believe the sources are quite authoritative enough in the subject for it really establish a rock solid critical consensus. What I mean is, we only have two respectable music critic sources (CoS and Clash) and just one sole gaming source (GR+). The other two sources (Digital Trends and Fact Mag) seem to me like pop culture/general tech news sites. We should require several video game centric publications with strong reliability to support this article for it to make sense. Sources like IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer, etc. Until then, a section on notable video game soundtracks on the video game music page (written in prose, not a table) would be most appropriate. TarkusAB^talk 00:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TarkusAB I'm all for removing Tom's Guide, but both NME and Rolling Stone are considered reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC, and long running print magazines in the music world. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 I agree they are reliable, it has nothing to do with reliability. My concern is they are not "the best soundtracks ever made" lists but rather "23 of the coolest" and "Nine legitimately awesome" soundtracks. TarkusAB^talk 13:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your concern with the NME list, but not the Rolling Stone one, which clearly sets up the article's scope in the opening paragraph, as covering nine of the best soundtracks in gaming history. That fits the scope of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per others; the reason I didn't ever put much work into the page is because the available sources are almost all pretty lousy, or are just short opinion pieces of a single editor (i.e. not collaborative), and the like. There are very few lists with actual rigor or effort put into them like the ones on List of video games considered the best. If there's ever an influx of better sources, I'll support restoring the page, though. Phediuk (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the others arguments. Not enough RS to have a list like this. Page would need a major overhaul to stay in my opinion. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a game music aficionado, I can see that this article is woefully incomplete, lacking a massive amount of critically acclaimed soundtracks, and the sources are dubious. I would say delete without prejudice to draftification if someone is willing to put in the effort to make the article up to snuff._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title of article is subjective. Calm Omaha (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. And what about "List of video game soundtracks considered not bad"? I mean, considered by me. Oh, you know what I mean. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This whole article is like one big Peacock Term. Its opinionated and does not contain notability. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- All critical lists like this are opinions, that's not what's generally being argued here. I think you guys voting for "subjectivity" are missing the point. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Offers no details as to how soundtracks are ranked and appears to be based on editor opinion. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:07, 24 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 delete. Speedy deleted under CSD:G11 Vanamonde (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harari (clothing)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a firm that seems to have gone out of business. No suggestion of notability Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. No suggestion that this defunct business met WP:N and the article as written is promotional. Mortee (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Clearly fails WP:ORG, and purely promotional. Fits criteria WP:G11.— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 24 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Sylvester Cobb[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. He gets a paragraph in History of the Cherokee Indians and Their Legends and Folk Lore, but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete drug store owner and postmaster in a small town. This is not the stuff notability is made of, unless maybe you came to be a character in someones historical fiction book, which is not the case for Cobb. Having a building you owned on the NRHP is not a sign of notability for a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Lots of people, including me, once owned or rented some historic building. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 24 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods by calorie[edit]

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

Prod removed apparently because even though this list is unsourced, the linked articles may (or may not) have sources in them. Anyway, the list has no inclusion criteria and no clear purpose or notability as an article topic. Would need to be moved it kept; name is analogous to "List of countries by square kilometers" or "List of buildings by meters". Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 19:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say Wikipedia is not a list of things. Plus what food would be included? To be fair you would literally have to list every food in the world. Also, the article cite no source. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a specific listing that applies, but this should be excluded by the spirit of WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a nutrition manual. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 👍 +1 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose that a "list of foods famous for high caloric density" might be acceptable, but this isn't that. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The topic is far too broad. There is also the issue of many foodstuffs not having a canonical caloric value: How much sugar and milk do you have in your coffee? What sized servings? — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 13:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced text of original work. Lists seem to be a particularly welcoming field for practitioners of original work. Time to start starving the practice. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:LIST, and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 24 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Research and Popular Service[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG (with both English and Spanish names) The Banner talk 18:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two Spanish-language references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RS???? The Banner talk 23:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these sources gives an in-depth description of the organisation. The first is about one of the founders, the second one is just a passing mention. The Banner talk 18:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It looks to me like a significant para-church organisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep since subject is Wikinotable per sources, albeit barely: 2013 and 2016 articles in La Patria, oldest Bolivian newspaper; RTVE report; International Planned Parenthood Federation article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expect some indepth sources, but a few parties, a passing mention and a description of only a part of their work are not really convincing. The Banner talk 15:03, 24 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond 25[edit]

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

Puzzle with no indication of notability. No references found--sole link in the article is a dead link. --Finngall ^talk 17:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFT. I'm not finding anything either. Everything's a false positive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't scare up any evidence that this is a notable puzzle (whatever the goal of the puzzle is — I can't really tell from how the article is written). The only reference is a dead link that turns out just to be a publisher's page for a book of brain teasers. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:BEFORE cant find any WP:RS on this puzzle. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 24 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Bryant[edit]

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

Non-notable stuntman. No in-depth coverage of him anywhere. I found one mention of him in the Cape Cod Times in 2010 in an article about someone else. Nothing else. Amsgearing (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources, so he fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he's on imdb: www.imdb.com/name/nm0117245/#actor and has a pretty long list there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreckless (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

imdb is not considered a reliable source, as it relies on user-submitted content. In theory, anyone can create an entry for themselves and add a "pretty long list there" in a matter of minutes. Amsgearing (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is totally lacking in reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep source added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceking (talk • contribs) 05:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sources don't appear to meet the requirements for reliable sources. The jonisstunts.com website is a commercial link advertising the services of stuntmen; Jalopnik is part of Gawker, and I think they are regarded as questionable sources. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Jalopnik was a reliable source (it's not), Bryant's name is mentioned once in a clickbait article that is titled "10 Of The Most Insane Death-Defying Stunts From Science Fiction Movies". Not even close to in-depth coverage. Amsgearing (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. Stuntment, like DJs and producers, are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 24 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hakia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just another website with 1 reference being a listing where everyone can add their company. CSD was declined. This search engine is not anything special. » Shadowowl | talk 12:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. So Why 12:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. So Why 12:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not an expert or anything, but it seems Hakia was one of the pioneers of semantic search and natural-language searchat a time when Google and others cared more about keywords and less about context. Some coverage I found on a short GBooks/GNews/Highbeam search:
- Campesato, Oswald; Nilson, Kevin (5 April 2010). Web 2.0 Fundamentals: With AJAX, Development Tools, and Mobile Platforms. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 9780763779733 – via Google Books.
- Pollock, Jeffrey T. (30 March 2009). Semantic Web For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470498187 – via Google Books.
- Gates, Peter (15 July 2010). Clinical Neurology E-Book: A Primer. Elsevier Health Sciences. ISBN 978-0729579353 – via Google Books.
- O'Leary, Mick (2010-06-01). "Hakia Gets Serious with Semantic Search". Information Today – via Highbeam. hakia's search interface is a single search panel with no on-screen search prompts and no advanced search options. Terms, phrases, and even lengthy text sections can be searched. However, there is no bound phrase searching.
- Fox, Vanessa (2009-01-01). "Hakia Helps Librarians with Credible Search Results". Information Today – via Highbeam.
- "hakia introduces new search engine interface.(Product News & Reviews)". Information Today. 2008-12-01 – via Highbeam.
- "Now, computers that can also crack jokes". Hindustan Times. 2007-08-29 – via Highbeam. Hakia conducts searches based on meaning, instead of popularity of key words or phrases. However, more popular approaches rely on statistics, which analyzes millions of words in a text and looks at what words occur frequently around other words.
- "Introduction to Semantic Search Engine - IEEE Conference Publication". ieeexplore.ieee.org. Retrieved 2018-07-17.
- Madhu, G.; Govardhan, Dr A.; Rajinikanth, Dr T. V. (2011). "Intelligent Semantic Web Search Engines: A Brief Survey". International Journal of Web & Semantic Technology. 2 (1). arXiv:1102.0831.
- Jordan, Jay (2010-12-30). "Climbing Out of the Box and Into the Cloud: Building Web-Scale for Libraries". Journal of Library Administration. 51 (1): 3–17. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.531637. ISSN 0193-0826.
- "SWISE: Semantic Web based intelligent search engine - IEEE Conference Publication". ieeexplore.ieee.org. Retrieved 2018-07-17.

Some of those are behind paywalls, so someone with access might have to check but it seems this search engine was a topic of scholarly discussion 10 years back. Regards So Why 13:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've removed some puffery and copy-editted the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a site that generated significant press at the time. The fact that it's now lost to history doesn't make it unencyclopedic, we just have to avoid puffery. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. Per sources listed by SoWhy, the subject seems to be notable. Lourdes 16:31, 24 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sitaram Vidyalaya[edit]

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

School with promotional text. Does not meet general notability guidelines as it has no reliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 12:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Strongly promotional at it stands: "The school has shown a phenomenal growth and spectacular development within a span of 20 years only in student strength." "This symbolizes that we have to aim high. The pair of sandals insists us to follow the path of righteousness." (My emphasis in bold) No secondary sourcing. A redirect can fashioned to List of schools in Chennai later, but it is currently not even listed there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC) updated 16:46, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Latest[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB. There is no significant coverage whatsoever for this website. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, it fails WP:NWEB. = paul2520 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:15, 17 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Residence Orchestra[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This was created by an SPA and translated from the German-language version. Some of the citations (since removed) are from WRO itself and the others look like press releases to me. I couldn't find significant coverage in independent sources. Most of what's out there are tourism websites, self-published stuff, or mere mentions. I'm pretty sure this article is purely meant for promotional purposes. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of international tours, these recordings held by libraries, and German-language references. See the "find sources" above. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See also the significantly longer German article at de:Wiener Residenzorchester which includes information on international tours. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Eastmain: The longer article seems to have more promotional material. The fact that the group has toured or libraries have recordings are included in NBAND. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tours are point 4 of WP:NBAND ("Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.") Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BAND now that updates have been made by Eastmain. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jmertel23: How do you figure? The group hasn't charted, didn't win a Grammy, etc. I don't see how you think this group is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Chris troutman: "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" as per WP:BAND. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Multiple independent WP:RS mention the orchestra. Greenshed (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NCORP and GNG with enough coverage in reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:07, 24 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. Vanamonde (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitser (software)[edit]

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

Freeware file archiving tool with no independent mentions beyond a few short reviews. No assertion of notability has been made by the WP:SPA article creator (or anyone else) in eight years. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or rather: Don't delete yet.
Normally, I'd always recommend that this very kind of stub'ish article be merged into an appropriate list-article. But! in this very case, then the appropriate list-article is "Comparison of file archivers", which however is (unlike normal list-articles) not offering an overview of all relevant properties for each item as one entry (one line in a one table). Instead each item is there split into 5 entries (5 lines in 5 tables; one table per property grouping), and that specific list-article-design/layout makes it near impossible to easily grasp the specific overview, as is offered by a specific item page (i.e. "Bitser (software)" being the item here).
Well, I don't have a solution, but I admire the problem. :-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - it could be draftified but shouldn't be in mainspace unless it meets one of the inclusion criteria.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Comparison of file archivers.~~ The software doesn't stand out on its own, but it's already described in depth in the comparison article. Newslinger (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 ^Talk 12:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the software products listed on Comparison of file archivers are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, so a redirect wouldn't be appropriate. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What?!? - You're contradicting yourself: Bitser is actually on that list, which you therefore take to mean that Bitser is entitled to have its own article. But you're voting to delete that very article. ... I think I need an empty glass full of water to go with that. -- DexterPointy (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing remark from nominator, who can't believe this is still going after 20 days: Some "List of" and "Comparison of" articles tend to become hopeless spam magnets unless without the WP:WTAF hammer to wield against redlinks. I'd worry that if we make this the only exception on Comparison of file archivers we can expect that list to grow into a giant WP:NOTDIR cruft-fest in a hurry. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suffusion of Yellow: Don't worry, just scream in terror: Have you seen List of breakfast drinks(?)

Q1: Why is Olive oil the first item on the list? Q2: Is "Coffee is a breakfast drink" a WP:FRINGE claim until we cite Sociology in Perspective - Mark Kirby - Google Books? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:53, 22 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divestyle[edit]

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

Fails on WP:GNG. Couldn't find anything in credible source that can help in establishing notability. Unreferenced since 2013. Hitro talk 20:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being cited to the official website isn't the same thing as being unreferenced. There is some independent coverage in GBooks. James500 (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about citation is pedantic nitpicking, so it's useless to talk about it. Apart from that, if you want to demonstrate notability then provide us with the link to "some independent coverage in GBooks", just saying that there is coverage won't help. Hitro talk 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to demonstrate notability. I was merely asserting verifiability (WP:V), and I only did that because you said the article was unreferenced, and because article topics have to be verifiable in addition to being notable. At this time, I do not know whether or not the magazine is notable. My comments were not a recommendation about what should happen to this article because, right now, I do not know what should happen to it. James500 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Newslinger (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and a WP:NMEDIA violation. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:16, 24 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 and redirect to AFC Ajax. Merger may be performed from the page history as needed: there is clear consensus that the standalone page is inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Ajax kit history[edit]

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

These kind of pages are not notable per WP:NOTGALLERY and past AFD consensus. See also ongoing discussion at WT:FOOTBALL. There should be nothing more than a brief section on the parent page. Giant Snowman 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coderzombie, Hhkohh, S.A. Julio, Govvy, Clyde1998, Koncorde, Harambe Walks, ChrisTheDude, Footwiks, Nzd, Faycal.09, Philk84, and Kante4: pinging all those who have contributed (so far) in the WT:FOOTY discussion (and apologies if I have missed anybody!). Giant Snowman 12:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A overview at the main or history article is enough (3-4 kits). There is no need to have a seperate article to cover every kit. Most times, they are "the same" with just some small changes. Kante4 (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some major content to AFC Ajax then delete or Delete directly, per nom and some content fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG Hhkohh (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the subject has been discussed in independent reliable sources enough to pass WP:N, nor that the parent article is so large that such content needs to be spun out. Content also fails WP:NOTGALLERY. A similar article was deleted some years ago at WP:Articles for deletion/Arsenal F.C. strip. As the entire content apart from most of the kit images was copied unattributed from the parent article, and most of it's still there, the original content of the parent article can easily be restored from the page history without need for merging. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unnecessary and not notable, violates NOTGALLERY. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Julio, Struway etc. Any notable changes should be dealt on main club page, season page, or history pages, via reliable sources and significant coverage - not only brand or sponsorship whims. Koncorde (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping if you had replied 14:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't looked at them all, but the Netherlands and Italy national team kit articles follow the pattern of the club kits: a paragraph or two of information which could easily fit into the main article (and in some cases have been copied out of that very location to flesh out the separate articles), followed by vast collections of minor variations to the same outfits. Not needed in my opinion. Crowsus (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as needed, per Hhkohh, then delete. This isn't notable as a stand-alone topic, though it isn't a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE problem; lots of sports team articles have "galleries" of uniform changes, and this seems well tolerated. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then Delete: Put important information - sponsorship history, notable kits - into AFC Ajax#Kits and crest and delete everything else. Per others regarding WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG. Clyde1998 (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I said at WT:FOOTY, the main thing it tells me is that the team's kit has always been a white shirt with a broad red panel down the front. That can be covered by a single sentence in the club's article. We don't need a massive gallery of microscopic variations on the same basic kit. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think WP:NOTGALLERY doesn't necessarily apply here, as a visual kit history can be encyclopedic (see for instance [1]). I think this would be a valid category on the club's general history page. Consensus is against a standalone article, and as a note to the closer, a single user has created a number of these pages in the last two months. SportingFlyer talk 04:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then delete There is a certain amount of content that is perfectly acceptable in the main article as of current it's not on the main article and a merge of said content is needed to sort this issue out so to straight up delete doesn't seem logical in anyway, especially the prose and showing the points of the main kit, it's origin, it's history. I am totally confused by the argument that a football clubs kit isn't notable. This makes no sense to me, as anyone that has seem that football club play will generally recognise the kit and associate that kit with that club, this is notability through identity. The addition of photographic images of any player ever playing for that club is photographic evidence of said notability. The main argument seems derive from an older consensus that we shouldn't have standalone articles on kits and I am in agreement that we don't need these articles. We can establish the kit identity, historical parts of it in a few words on the main article of any football club and provide a few kits as reference. I am also surprised that not one person have added that this is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK argument for deletion. Govvy (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the seperate article

Firstly': Please don't focus on the only kit evolution. Yes, right. Most of club and national team had traditional kit. Therefore, Every season, Kit had some small changes. I respect the opinion that small change is not important. But this is very relative concept. Most Museums of clubs and national football teams had Kit history room. And They are displaying kits of most seasons. Also many people want to watch the kit evolution through whole season. I mean, To many people, Especially football fans, Small changes in kit also have very important value. Kit history is also part of Football history and records and Football culture.

For example, Please check out this video!
History Of Germany's World Cup Football Kits. As you know, German national football team kit is always White shirts and Black shorts. In every major tournament, Germany kits had small changes. Many people don't think that this video is meaningless. I think 225,000 people watched this video .

Also, Please check out other country's wikipedia: es:Categoría:Uniforme de selecciones de fútbol, it:Categoria:Colori e simboli delle squadre di calcio giapponesi, pt:Categoria:Uniformes de clubes de futebol
Baseball have separate kit history article in English Wikipedia.. Category:Major League Baseball logos and uniforms

Other country's seprate kit history and Baseball articles are keeping without deletion discussion.

Secondly' We can expand seperate article with various topic. For example, Recently, Football Kit is not just shirts. Footbll kit is a kind of business. I'll want to update informations like belows

England national football team kit deal information.

Kit supplier	Period	Contract date	Contract duration	Value	Notes
Nike	2013–present	2012-09-03	Spring 2013–July 2018 (5 years)	Total £125m (£25m per year)
Nike	2013–present	2016-12-13	August 2018–2030 (12 years)	Total £400m (£33.3m per year)

Thank you for listening my opinion. Please keep the article and Please expand together!

Comment: first point, the England kit article should not and will not be treated any differently to the other articles which have had the text pasted from the main articles followed by a big gallery of kit graphics. Even if the text was different, the topic is still too weak for their own article. Many of the contributors on English Wikipedia are not English nationality, so there is no reason why they would be more sympathetic to an article on that topic, and conversely, the English editors might give it more attention and be more critical.

Second point, English Wikipedia is a different project altogether from other languages, their rules are different and most of the articles I have read in other languages are inferior to enwiki in terms of sources and reliability. The writing doesn't seem great either but I rely on machine translations, so can't be sure. There seems to be be less oversight on what is included, so in some cases there is more stuff but a lot of it probably shouldn't be there. The point is, you can't compare wiki articles in Spanish and Italian and expect the same content to be in the English version.

Third point, no I don't think the Red Sox article is very useful either. If you're making a comparison, that article isn't just a page filled with graphics, although three references for all that text is very poor and I'm considering suggesting it for deletion having now seen it, although I really don't care about that sport or any topic associated with that country. I mean, one of the main things about baseball is that a lot of the basics have stayed the same for 150 years, traditions are good but then what is the basis of an encyclopedia article saying that a uniform has been the same with minor differences for all those years? Like the football articles, it could be included in the main team article. Crowsus (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Someone just tried to WP:CANVASS me. I have no opinion either way on this discussion, but I want to make sure you're aware. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Footwiks: AGF notwithstanding, given the similarity of that comment to this one by you, did you log out to canvass other editors? Giant Snowman 08:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, Firstly, At that time, I can't login due to private situation. And I don't want to canvass, I just want to inform sports kit article contributors of this discussion's importance. (I thought Muboshgu was interested in sports kit article, I didn't force him to support my opinion. Please Check out my comment.) Anyway I really sorry about that. Actually, I didn't know the WP:CANVASS in detail. From now on, I'll be careful of WP:CANVASS policy.

In my defense, If this discussion is about just Ajax kit history article, Honestly, This discussion and deletion of article is not important a lot. But you said to me. "If Ajax Kit history article will be deleted. You'll nominate all football kit articles for deletion. As you know, Discussion make people tired and Discussion need scrafice of precious time. In general, Wikipedia users don't want to join discussion. I worried about that wikipedia users misunderstood this discussion. In other words, Many wikipedia users don't know this discussion's influence. Maybe, They can think that this discussion is about just Ajax Kit History Deletion.

If all seperate football kits are deleted by result of this discussion, By same logic, Wikipedia can delete seperate Baseball Uniform articles. Besides, In the future, In English wikipedia, We can't create separate sports kit articles.

In my opinion, Again, This discussion is not simple discussion. According to result of discussion, All separate football kits can be deleted. Therefore all dedications and contributions about sports kit aritcles will come to nothing.

In conclusion, I think Discussion title is unsuitable, (This article is suitable: For example, Articles for deletion/Separate All Sports uniforms/kits), Also, Discussion need more participants and enough time. + Footwiks (talk) 06:53, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hot coil challenge[edit]

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

A short spate of press coverage back in February only seems to feature a single person ever having attempted this, the cited Independent Journal Review source saying "It should be noted that while media outlets are calling this the new challenge, so far this is the only video that exists of this “challenge.” Lord Belbury (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In that case, if possible, it might be worth briefly mentioning this 'challenge' and the media hysteria that followed it in articles more relevant to the greater discourse on harmful challenges that happened around the start of 2018.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any real media hysteria here, just several press outlets (some a few weeks after the others) reporting that one man had filmed himself foolishly burning his own arm, and expressing concern that this could become another "internet challenge". But five months on, it hasn't. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. no evidence of lasting coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. wumbolo ^^^ 12:04, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Kumar Panasa[edit]

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

Media CEO of insufficient notability. Main source appears to be an interview that is not even accessible anymore, otherwise passing mentions. Jumped out of AfC, which may not have been a good idea. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note The author of the article Snehratna (talk · contribs) has declared they had been paid by the subject to write this article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 02:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Person fails director notability. Reference used are very weak. When combining references, it only has 6 references, 1 of them links to IMDB, which Wikipedia doesn't consider a good source. Also reference 1 about the interview loads a blank page for me. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the interview was working up until last week but I've removed it and replaced it with another link. RK Media and RK Panasa are an important part of the Telegu Film Industry. I've added information about an alleged drug racket to make the article seem more neutral than it was before. These references also talk about RK Panasa. I've removed the IMDB link. Even if we keep one worthy paragraph on him in Wikipedia, it will be great because the Telegu film industry and the people who work in it get very little recognition as it is. Snehratna (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Snehratna[reply]

Note:The above user had moved the article from draft, bypassing the review process. Looking at their talk page, there were numerous reviewers who was the draft isn't ready for main space. Also the reviews raised concern about conflict of interest and notability. KJP1 (talk · contribs) said "Complete advertisement, promotional in content and tone. Very weakly-sourced. Single-purpose author almost certainly has an undeclared Conflict of interest. Tagging for deletion."

Also, there was little to no change to the article after Jac16888 (talk · contribs) moved it back to draft space. Pinging involved users. @KylieTastic, Theroadislong, and Robert McClenon: Hey, you were involved in reviewing the draft version of this article. Maybe you might wanna chime in to this deletion? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned in RS are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are merely passing mentions with no in-depth coverage, fails Wikipedia:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn’t even remotely resemble what it was before reviews. It has been rewritten and worked on several times. No reason was given for removal back to the draft space the last time. Apologies if I made a mistake. Wasn’t trying to bypass anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snehratna (talk • contribs) 13:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want to keep or delete? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the references are from reliable news outlets Snehratna (talk)17:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: You should not remove the paid editing declaration from your user page, and you must declare the edit immediately above this one as a paid edit. See WP:PAID Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a different paid editing declaration from my user page unrelated to this one. I am not pursuing that topic anymore. I have declared it on the talk page of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snehratna (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said you have been paid for creating this article. I find it a bit dodgy that you have blanked your user page declaring that. I have restore the declaration and added the one for Ravi Kumar Panasa --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had declared that on my user page but my user page got deleted by someone else. I didn't delete it. Thank you for restoring the declaration but you've added another one for Campus Karma which I removed since I am not pursuing that topic as it didn't have enough notability. So I'm going to remove that declaration. Snehratna (talk)

Delete - if you eliminate the arrest for drugs - there doesn't seem to be anything notable here. As an alternative to "delete", you could increase the material on the drugs arrest, but that could run into BLP problems (e.g. WP:BLP1E is a possibility). Overall a very ragged, problematic article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Wikipedia page to a subject mentioned in the RK Panasa article, Nara Rohit. The references used here are interviews, some pages do not exist anymore. Can someone please help me understand why there is a discrepancy? I mean no offense, I'm new to Wikipedia. I want to understand the process better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snehratna (talk • contribs) 17:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and fails all applicable policies by a long way. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional article on a businessman who specializes in promotion. Wikipedia is not, contrary to what some believe, an acceptable platform for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The language used is neutral and the sources are secondary, verifiable and reliable. I asked why the page Nara Rohit is allowed to exist on Wikipedia when it doesn't have any notable references to which no one responded. I fail to understand why no one can explain that to me. I may have been paid to edit but I personally don't know this person and I have no bias. But from my research, he is and continues to be an important part of the Telegu Film industry and has also acted in a movie. If you can give me a reason why Nara Rohit's page that is riddled with citations that do not exist, are not reliable or verifiable can continue to exist and is not considered self-promotion, I will tag the Wikipedia page for RK Panasa for deletion. Snehratna (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ravidas Gurdwaras[edit]

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

A long useless list of redlinks with unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 10:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly red-links, and facebook as sources. Fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 03:41, 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. Sandstein 09:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Dounias[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; most sources found are MP3 downloads, etc. Non-notable musician; fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. The editor whose username is Z0 14:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must admitt I don't speak Greek (I'm just a fan of older laiko music), so finding sources are a little harder for me (at least, here is his archived official site: [2]), plus he belongs to an older generation. However, Mr. Dounias definitely fits WP:MUSICBIO, where it is stated that a musician "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria."

He had press coverage. For example, here he is on a cover of an 80's weekly periodical: [3] and there are numerous interviews with him even nowadays
"Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels": He had albums on Polydor Records, Columbia Records
"Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style": two of his singles were released in Yugoslavia as a representative of Greek folk music in the mid-70's by PGP RTB: [4] and he was featured on at least 3 compilations representing Greek music from 1960 until 1990 [5], released by Phillips: [6]
Although I can't find any info about his sales or chart positions, if someone is active as a musician for 50 years professionally and has greatest hits collections released regularly, he probably had some success. I guess Greek members of Wikipedia could help with that. StjepanHR (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Discogs is not a reliable source though. Can you prove your claims by citing reliable sources? The editor whose username is Z0 16:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - For releases on major labels, it is enough to see album covers, and they are provided on Mr. Dounias' official page: [7] and some of them have label logo (like EMI). And unless somebody photoshoped all of his album covers, even Discogs pictures would be usable for that, even though Discogs is not entirely reliable for some other uses.StjepanHR (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple releases on Polydor and other major record labels, as shown on discogs.com, indicates notability. For a Greek-language singer, it's important to search on the Greek version of his name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unable to verify your claim as I've found no reliable sources. The editor whose username is Z0 16:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here you go [8]ShoesssS ^Talk 13:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "A legend of Greek popular singing" as Ref #3 to the Greek mainstream media Lifo states: "θρύλος του λαϊκού τραγουδιού". Among other things [9], the title song from his 1973 LP Ταρζάν, and the song "Tου άντρα του πολλά βαρύ" from the same album, both composed by the famous Greek composer Yannis Markopoulos, were major hits in Greece [10], and they are beloved songs up till now. ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Enough coverage from secondary – verifiable – reliable sources to include here at Wikipedia. In addition, I have added references from Billboard 100 into the article showing multiple releases from Polydor Records and Philips Records. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:16, 17 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 09:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karna vs Arjuna[edit]

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

This appears to be a selection of myths chosen to promote a specific viewpoint; it is pure WP:OR. If there is genuine scholarly discussion over which mythical archer was "better" then we could perhaps have an article on the debate, but this appears to be one user's personal opinion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research using quora and youtube as sourcing, to essentially write an essay that is not an encyclopedia article. Anything on this topic should be in the respective articles of the two subjects. First Light (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic WP:OR. Also a POV Fork created once similarly problematic edits at Karna were reverted. Abecedare (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a sock, or a duck? First began editing on Talk:Karna. And another one, only 18 edits and begins the account by edit-warring. Both accounts joined 6 months ago and indulge in Karna-bashing. 2.51.17.82 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History -related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 12:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ignoring allegations of sock and only talking about Subject. I was honestly looking to find something to save this article. The topic is a Hindu Mythology notable topic, The rivalry is indeed relevant as far as the mythology is concerned. But sadly this article makes no mention of "Kawach"(armour) and "Kundal"(ear tops). leading me to conclude that inspite of the poor sources, the article is badly written and OR. That said, some one with better source can go ahead and recreate the same article with better sources. @Kautilya3: if he sees anything worthwhile to save here. --DBigXray 19:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whatever needs to be said can be said on the Karna page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TNT / WP:NOTESSAY. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a notable movie, however contrasting superheros or mythical epic heroes is generally in essay territory.Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 23 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 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Insight Forum[edit]

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

Unreferenced. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Absolutely no reliable sources. Article appears to be original research. Newslinger (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 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. Sandstein 09:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Starck[edit]

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

Failing notability as film maker WP:NACTOR and probably also failing GNG. Most coverage appears clustered around the time of his two travels. German main stream site Spiegel Online covered him interview style as a one off. NatGeo did the same around the same time. All other coverage seems blog-style or plugging his film and book - using similar language and pictures/clips. Little if anything by way of reliable independent editorial coverage. Certainly lacking persistence of coverage - a guy doing unusual holidays and making a film about it. He may be an up-and-coming film maker, but an article is WP:TOOSOON giving lack of depth. As side note, German WP deleted the article a while back. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his work has not yet risen to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 22 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. This isn't the place for a merge discussion, and even those supporting a merge suggest that the substance in the articles is reasonable. There's no support for deleting from anyone besides the nominator. There are also procedural issues here in that two pages are listed but one of them has no AfD notice. As such, I'm closing this as keep, and recommending that any merge proposals be taken to the talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ybor Stadium and Rays Ballpark[edit]

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

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

I just realized there are currently article for two Rays ballparks that don't exist: the Rays' St. Pete waterfront proposal from 2007 and the Ybor Stadium that was proposed last week. Neither deserves an article at this time, imo, as the first proposal was dropped several years ago and the second is far from being a done deal. Both articles should be deleted and merged into a paragraph or two in Tampa Bay Rays and/or Tropicana Field, at least until ground is broken in Ybor. Zeng8r (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A merge would probably be better in this scenario rather than being in AfD. There's articles on here about "future" projects or proposed projects that never made it past design phase and if it might not be a done deal than that could be explained in the article as a legit criticism. (Kind of curious on how it can't be a done deal unless you meant in parallel with the Rays Ballpark.) – TheGridExe (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment Merge-delete is my preference as well. Perhaps I started this discussion in the wrong venue?... Zeng8r (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no merge. These are two separate stadium proposals, and it seems the Ybor proposal is happening. Even if it doesn't, proposed stadiums can be notable with sourcing. See the 22 items in Category:Unbuilt stadiums in the United States. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC):[reply]

comment I tend to be a Wiki-inclusionst, but your argument opens the door for dozens and dozens of articles about unbuilt stadiums all over the world. Do you realize how often ballpark / stadium ideas have been introduced over the years - with artists' renditions and all - across just the major sports leagues? Let's just focus on baseball in the Tampa Bay area. Before the Rays, there were at least a half dozen press conferences announcing serious plans to build a ballpark in various locations around Tampa or St. Pete. My favorite was a dome remarkably like Tropicana Field that was supposed to be built right down the street from where I lived, where Raymond James Stadium now stands. Should every one of those unbuilt proposals get an article? I don't think so. Venues-that-never-were should get a mention in an article about a related sports team or sports venue, IF they're still deemed important enough for that. Only very, very few are notable enough for their own article.

The Ray's St. Pete waterfront proposal probably should've never gotten an independent article, and it definitely should be culled now. I personally love the Ybor ballpark idea, but it's FAR from a done deal at this point. If the financing somehow comes together and bulldozers start rumbling, the current article text could be restored from the redirect. Zeng8r (talk)

Keep. Wikipedia already has dozens and dozens of articles about proposed stadiums, so the slippery slope doesn't really work here. If there are enough sources to indicate notability, which I'm confident is the case with Ybor Stadium, proposed or unfinished ballparks getting articles is normal. No opinion on Rays Ballpark. Blackguard 17:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Rays Ballpark and Ybor Stadium should be merged. SportsFan007 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007[reply]

IDEA! I still don't think that these two stadium ideas have enough notability for an article, even combined. How about this - a new section at Baseball in the Tampa Bay area discussion the many stadium proposals over the years, including these two? (I honestly thought I'd already written a section like that years ago, but it's not there, so maybe it slipped off my to-do list.) The current two articles could be redirected to that section. Thoughts? Zeng8r (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no merge. Clearly notable per WP:GNG, even if it's never built. - BilCat (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm withdrawing my input. Running a merge discussion and an AFD at the same time? No thanks, just keep me out of it. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't understand the problem. As per usual in my 11 years editing Wikipedia, I'm trying to get as much input from as many interested parties as possible to come up with a reasonable consensus. Guess I should start deleting/moving/whatever without asking if anyone else has an opinion... Zeng8r (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more that an AfD calls for a more immediate action versus a merge with no solid time restriction. The AfD is most likely going to become a 'no consensus' or keep based on that action. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per Bilcat. I have been cynical about Ybor since I heard that was their preferred location. I've been telling anyone who has asked me about it in the last week that "I'll believe this when there are shovels in the ground" after having been teased enough about stadiums in the last 10 years. Having said that, if the proposals for Al Lang and Carillon didn't exist, there would be no reason not to have an Ybor article so soon. Tampabay721 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tampa Bay Rays. This is not even a firm proposal. Even if this stadium gets built, it's unlikely to retain the name. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball that can predict what's going to happen, this should be just a section within the Rays article until (if!) some decisions are made and an accurate name can be provided.Jacona (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least the 2007 proposal as that clearly passes WP:GNG. The Ybor ballpark seems a bit more speculative to me but will be notable even if it fails. Neither should be merged. SportingFlyer talk 21:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is Rays Ballpark a part of this AfD or not? Because it was added after the fact into this discussion, but the page doesn't have an AfD notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 22 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) Lourdes 05:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahám Pressburger[edit]

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

Not notable. Only source given is an interview, which does not meet the independence criteria; no coverage in RS found. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER either. Catrìona (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable personality of the WWII and important witness of the Holocaust. The article now contains three reliable, substantial and independent sources in Czech. There is a lot of room for improvement and deletion would be a disservice for Wikipedia. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 04:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The radio program is a valid reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under WP:GNG, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Of the three sources mentioned by Vejvančický, two of them in my opinion do not meet that criteria. Unedited interviews, which this source is, do not count as independent of the subject. I am not convinced of the reliability of this source, because it says at the bottom of the page that "If you also have an interesting story from the war or the communist era, or someone from your neighborhood, write to us." Personally, I think the subject of the article is very interesting, but not notable. The fact that he is a Holocaust survivor does not relate to his notability, and Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Catrìona (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona, please note that Czech Radio is the public radio broadcaster of the Czech Republic, not a platform where you can self-publish everything what you want. I'll try to continue in defense of this article but I apologize if not because my time dedicated to this project is limited. Thank you. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 20:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vejvančický: I didn't mean to imply that. I am unconvinced that two journalistic articles that appear to be based on an interview are sufficient to write a good Wikipedia article. Although the Czech Radio is a national, publicly funded broadcaster and I would usually consider it a reliable source, its coverage of the Prague uprising is quite distorted and as a result I have become skeptical about it. Catrìona (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a detailed article/bigraphy at Aktuality.sk - a notable Slovak media outlet (Pressburger is a Slovak Jew rather than Czech). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of War-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Significant improvements have been made since the nomination. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:16, 19 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 09:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Emert[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. Doesn't hold an office that would meet WP:NPOL and doesn't have the sourcing to meet WP:GNG – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Most sources focus on a single ad campaign, which would make this a person notable for one event, and the event isn't even notable. This article should be created only if the politician wins the election. WP:TOOSOON Newslinger (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 16:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being chairman of a political party's youth chapter is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL in and of itself — but this makes no other claim of notability for other reasons, and doesn't cite anywhere close to enough media coverage about him to pass GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heading some party youth chapters might be notable, but not in this case. We would need to see both more notability for the chapter and more coverage of the individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 22 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. After multiple re-lists, the trend of the editors' consensus seems to have moved towards keep, with no opposition from either the original nominator or other editors. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winc[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Standard trade papers reporting change of name. scope_creep (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This used to be Staples Inc in Australia and New Zealand; article is needed to make this reference and definitely passes WP:GNG. Pesa881 (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A simple small paragraph in Staples could provide the details. All the reference in this are Churnalism, except one, which is the Sydney Morning News, and that is a name drop. scope_creep (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about New Zealand, but Staples was big in Australia. Winc took over Staple's shops there, which makes it worth the article. Pesa881 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Pesa881.Redirect to Staples, but do not delete first, because editors in the future may prove notability and recreate the article, that way the page history will be preserved. -Henry ^TALK 04:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:HenryMP02 Pesa881 is SPA account and the creator of the article. The standard policy for this type of article is a redirect. scope_creep (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I will update accordingly. -- Henry ^TALK 18:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The former Staples stores in Australia and New Zealand will now have different designs, merchandise and strategies than the Staples stores in the United States and Canada. Mixing the two together in a single article is a recipe for confusion. Moreover, Winc New Zealand has apparently been sold, or is about to be sold. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1807/S00112/commission-approves-purchaser-for-winc.htm https://www.reseller.co.nz/article/643358/rich-lister-swoops-winc-nz/ An infobox that combined financial figures, store count and employee count for Winc and Staples would be meaningless. Winc is already notable in its own right, and the ownership change is fundamental to that notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a major national chain, which is a sufficient claim of significance. A redirect to Staples Inc. would not be appropriate as that page states: "In 2016, Staples divested its Australian and New Zealand businesses...". These are now unrelated businesses, separately owned and operating under separate brands. A redirect would be confusing to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 24 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. Spinningspark, based on this discussion it appears better to try to include your proposed text in another related article such as Civil Services of India. Sandstein 09:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Division Clerk[edit]

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

This is nothing more than a job title and has never been sourced. There is little encyclopedic about it and wikipedia is not a dictionary CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a notable position. bd2412 T 20:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per ~~L3X1~~ BD2412. Not a notable position, and the article fails to attempt to establish notability. --HunterM267 ^talk 17:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I didn't vote or anything, just procedurally sorted the debate into the right categories. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I read the wrong name in source. --HunterM267 ^talk 23:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources whatsoever, and no real claim to notability. The article does little more than define what the position is. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of this could be sourced from Indian Administration (Sixth Edition). Interestingly, The Home Office, 1848-1914, from Clerks to Bureaucrats discusses lower division clerks in the UK government in much more detail. Especially interesting is the history of the reluctance to promote from the lower division, presumably through class prejudice, and how this attitude changed over the years. India's retention of this post is undoubtedly a legacy of British Rule so it would not be unreasonable to include the UK history of the post in the same article. On that basis, I say the subject is notable. SpinningSpark 23:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that just be merged into Clerk, then? bd2412 T 23:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really, it's far too specific for that article. I'm not against a merge to a more appropriate place, but it's clear to me that it is possible to expand this page into a decent article if the historical background is included, so as far as AfD is concerned I remain at keep. SpinningSpark 10:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for more input regarding sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't care whether this can be sourced: it's obviously not encyclopedic to be writing up garden variety civil service positions simply because the government uses the internet to publish them. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't a job title directory. This is a descriptive title that could apply to any number of jobs. If the content were referenced, it might be appropriate for an article on Clerks in the Government of India, but the existing content is unreferenced and WP:TNT quality. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe and Power~enwiki: The expansion I had in mind would be something like the following. Would this change your mind? SpinningSpark 17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History

The origins of the post of lower division clerk can be traced to British Rule in India. In the British Civil Service the lower division reflected a class division. Lower division clerks were not expected to be promoted to the higher divisions, one of many grievances that led them to form a staff association to promote their cause.^[1] However, such promotions were not impossible and did sometimes occur under exceptional circumstances. The first clerk to achieve this was Home Office clerk G. H. Tripp in 1884.^[2] The implementation of this structure in the Indian Civil Service took the form of lower division clerks being recruited from Indians and all higher posts being filled by Europeans. Even following independence, upper division clerks were employed by direct recruitment rather than internal promotion. It was not until the late 20th century that it became normal for these posts to be filled by promotion from the lower division.^[3]

References

^ Pellew, pp. 112-114
^ Pellew, p. 102
^ Maheshwari, p. 77.

Bibliography

Perlew, Jill, The Home Office, 1848-1914, from Clerks to Bureaucrats, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982 ISBN 0838631657.
Maheshwari, S. R., Indian Administration (Sixth Edition), Orient Blackswan, 2001 ISBN 812501988X.

- It doesn't change my position. I still don't know what "division" means in this context. Discussing this on a wider-ranging page that clearly refers specifically to India is a better choice than trying to discuss this specific role separately. Would Civil Services of India be a possible redirect target? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:56, 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.