The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not "inherently" notable in and of itself, but the article makes no credible claim that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons and doesn't demonstrate any strong reason why he could be considered more notable than most other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, fails WP:POLITICIAN, unsuccessful candidates are rarely notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. SportingFlyer talk 07:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yep, as per nom, fails WP:POLITICIAN Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Padding the article doesn't disguise the fact that there's nothing there. --Calton | Talk 03:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, Fails Thazinkoko (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NPOL. Unsuccessful candidates can be notable but I don't think this one is. Besides, paid editing concerns never help. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unelected candidates are almost never notable. We really need to purge several such articles from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while he got lots of coverage in Upstate New York media, it was of the "also ran" variety. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Advanced Public Safety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the sources are actually about the subject, they mention it primarily in the context of author affiliation. The entire thing is drawn from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A quick Google news search shows that there is some coverage available; the article just needs some work to add in third-party sources and to remove some of the info added by an account with apparent COI. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Jmertel said, there is enough coverage here for a article on this. There is conflict of interest editing in the page and the sources are third-party, but this doesn't mean that the article shouldn't be kept and expanded on later. Twinky995 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:N..Monterey Bay (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lots of Ghits - looks like adequate RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 5 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Afrânio Asconavieta da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this subject. It appears that virtually all coverage is published in primary sources, which does not establish notability, and none of the primary sources appear to constitute significant coverage either. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not enough media coverage on the individual itself besides being in articles which are to broad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet, !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Have other people with the position of Area Seventy been kept at AfD? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Quick search, doesn't look like substantial RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - TL;DR: fails GNG, etc. Traditionally, bishops of major denominations "are notable by virtue of their status", even if sourcing is from that denomination. LDS bishops are specifically excluded from that, however (disclaimer: not a Mormon, may contain inaccuracies):

• Ref Priesthood (LDS Church), LDS bishops < area authorities (Quorums 3+) < general authorities (Quorums 1-2) < Apostles < First Presidency
• The general authorities exercise administrative and ecclesiastical authority. Area presidents are general authorities
• Seventies consist of Quorums of up to 70 members aged 55+. Members of Quorum 1 are appointed for life but may go emeritus at 70. Members of Quorum 2 serve until release (but generally for 5-7 years, which would take them into their 60s) -- but may be promoted from Quorum 2 to Quorum 1
• The LDS currently has ~109 general authorities, at a ratio of ~1 for every 135K Mormons (about 15m LDS members). There's about 1 bishop for every 250K Catholics, or 1 bishop for every 100K Anglicans, so this is a comparable ratio for general authorities, but not for area authorities.
• There's thus a case to be made that (while other denominations' bishops retain de-facto notability) some level of the LDS hierarchy should treated equitably and endowed with the same status. This is probably the general authorities of Quorum 1 and above, though perhaps Quorum 2 as well for simplicity.
• The area authorities of Quorums 3+ and below, however, should be considered to have no presumed notability, and would need to demonstrate that they meet GNG or an SNG. No evidence has been provided or found that the article's subject does. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Hydronium Hydroxide. The subject is not high up enough to rate as automatically notable, and there are zero sources otherwise. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and GNG. There are 2 sources the first is a passing mention in routine coverage and the second is his agent. Nothing of interest found in a before search. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete IMHO fails GNG and insuffecient RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG .Emily Khine (talk) 18:52, 10 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 Close. When creating deletion discussion, page is a redirect, it should be posted to WP:RfD (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2046 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL IWI (chat) 20:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this nonsense again. Seriously, who makes these pages? SemiHypercube (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense. Might be worth be sent to WP:RFD as its a redirect now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreasonable. Nothing more than 5 years in advance. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have a PROD and an AFD at the same time, I am fine with the redirect under NOHURRY and DIY. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:30, 3 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page was speedily deleted as advertising, that was overturned at deletion review. A number of people wanted the article sent to AfD, so here it is. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 20:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging DRV participants: @Djm-leighpark:, @Hobit:, @RoySmith:, @Seraphim System:, @Cryptic:, @SmokeyJoe:, @Winged Blades of Godric:, @DGG:, @TonyBallioni:, @Lonehexagon:, @Atlantic306:, @Godsy:. Hut 8.5 20:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only source that looks solid is the textbook, Database Systems: A Practical Approach to Design, Implementation, and Management. I was thinking that could qualify as, It is the subject of instruction at [...] universities or post-graduate programs, stated in WP:NSOFT. It turns out, however, that the authors of that textbook are both faculty at University of Paisley, which is now called University of the West of Scotland, which is where Pyrrho comes from. So, that's not an independent source. My own searching failed to come up with any good sources either. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability from independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - Per above..Monterey Bay (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough RS for my liking - Not notable, as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find anything to convince me it's notable. Basie (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thankyou for the comments. My efforts in sourcing the Begg/Connolly book are currently on hold. I can understand I did not previously question possible questionable independence of that source, though the wide distribution of said book might make the question to be asked on Wikipedia about Pyrrho. The significance of the educational DBTechNet initiative do not appear to be appreciated here ... with Pyrrho bundled (probably) in the educational pack for ACID or OCC properties. However in total strictness UWS is associated as a partner in DBTechNet. Despite the developer appearing to be retiring ... which came to light to me during this nomination ... development by that person is likely to continue any we may yet be WP:TOOSOON. I had considered article content improvement but the loss or outside possibility theft means I am likely to forego that. I could also possibly use some search resources down Portsea on Monday ... but Portsea for me is always iffy. I have and am possibly considering a re-direct/merge ... though I know of no suitable existing target I would support ... attempting merge/redirect to Mimer SQL or VoltDB would be too disruptive to the target. I am quite likely to initiate some form of save on Sunday or Monday. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think its great you have done research... but for the average wikipedian who doesn't know the area, we really need independant sources that establish the notability of the subject matter, so articles, books, etc talking about it in a manner that shows its notable and important to its field. There are references here, but they don't qualify as that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is unlikely this article will survive unless further sources emerge. I have not chosen not too create a feasible redirect target at this point. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:27, 10 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McDonald (college sports coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparent autobiography that fails notability guidelines at WP:NCOLLATH. Ifnord (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 20:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 8 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not enough reliable sources to establish notability and Corpdepth. MT Train^Talk 12:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Subject could notable if we look at locations and filmography but I only found name mentions after clicking on the find sources tab above.Mia Watson (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very little coverage of this organization found in BEFORE. Sources in article do not establish notability.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Active SETI#Realized projects. Redirects are cheap. See also WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Message from Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another marketing-fueled message to arbitrary outer-space, this one promoted by Bebo. There is some substantial content about sending messages into space as a general concept which might be appropriate at some other article; none of those references discuss this message. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That material appears to already be at Active SETI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough RS - delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Active_SETI#Realized_projects and use any useful refs. Praemonitus (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Active SETI#Realized projects. Redirects are cheap. See also WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is something between an art piece, a marketing campaign, and a press release; there's no reason to consider it a bona fide attempt at communication or scientific research. It doesn't appear to have been the subject of substantial secondary coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is definitely a marketing attempt, I see nothing to make me believe that this is an actual scientific attempt. Moreover, it has very little reliable secondary coverage, and the article itself doesn't have much promise of being made better. Twinky995 (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom, nothing to substantiate as notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Active_SETI#Realized_projects and include any useful refs. Praemonitus (talk) 21:53, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Source searches are only providing passing mentions; not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only the org.'s own website really mention "No Longer Silent: Clergy for Justice" as an organization. Curdle (talk) 23:06, 9 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 01:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No significant coverage, only secondary source is a college newsletter article, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bovineboy: Please let me know what sorts of resources you need for inclusion on this page. No one has raised any such issues with this page since its inception. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelinks212 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read over WP:RS. BOVINEBOY2008 22:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. no reliable 3rd party sources--just some youtube blurbs. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG.Jmertel23 (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom, no independant RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mark 16. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Seems to be referring to Mark 16#Longer ending of Mark. I don't have access to the sources, but this is not a standard term, and appears to be used differently by different authors (Some use the term for the Gospel of Mark as a whole.[1]) The existence of a page here is more likely to confuse further. Daask (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mark 16, which is the main article for the topic. StAnselm (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I oppose a redirect, as this is not a common term, and its usage by authors is inconsistent. Daask (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears this page was created by Paul Bedson, an unreliable editor. There was a discussion about deleting a host of articles this editor created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-Abdias, which closed with no consensus on the understanding that each article would be considered on a case-by-case basis. I was unaware of this at the time I made my proposal, but believe it supports deletion. Daask (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mark 16 - the term "Psuedo Mark" does get used - but no need to duplicate the article. If there was any information on the identity of the Psuedo Mark individual, who wrote the verse not written by Mark, may be that could justify an article - but there isn't (and certainly not presented here). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• REdirect -- I would have expected this to be about a pseudigraphical work, not merely about the canonical longer ending of that gospel, whose authorship is disputed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 5 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. Enigma^msg 16:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO, only passing mentions, there is no inherent notability in being a motivational speaker. In my opinion the subject does not qualify for a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FitIndia 17:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Per nom. Has got a few awards, which are absolutely non-notable and a few interviews, most of which looks to be paid-promotion.∯WBG^converse 04:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @WBG You know about Sai Kaistuv ?? You already removed almost informations and refrences from the article. Why ? Why you told the content is in promotional structure. The information added in the article was true and also cited the reference. Once the article nominated and it was declined by the admin panel. I don’t understand what’s going on here.. ATK55 talk 08:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above, there is some coverage but not enough for GNG. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO also the creator appears to have COI issues as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I did some BEFORE searching without finding anything substantive. I analyzed the existing refs and posted to Fbofficl (ATK55) at their talk page underneath the AfD notice (this was following an IRC discussion), in an attempt to explain why these refs are not considered notability references. Perhaps something exists in other languages? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:19, 9 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 01:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No content. No indication that technology companies are different than other companies. Articles with more precise and meaningful definitions like Startup company, Internet service provider. or Electronics industry are more useful. Daask (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but move to Technology industry and expand along those lines. bd2412 T 18:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: "Technology company" or "tech company" are reasonable search terms and incredibly common company descriptors. A cursory look at the article's incoming links shows this. If I google "tech company", the first result is this Wikipedia article and an excerpt from this article is included for the first "people also ask" question (ref). This article could perhaps be merged into a larger article, though nobody has yet articulated why that would be a good or reasonable thing to do.

  Daask, I'm curious whether you've made any attempt to research this topic or expand the article to meet your standards. I personally don't think having a short article is necessarily bad, but I also think expanding this article to cover topics such the ambiguous definition of tech company (ref) or tech company culture, sometimes referred to as Silicon Valley culture (ref, ref, ref), and how it relates to start-up culture and work culture generally, would be pretty easy to do.

  Taking a small step back, since we have articles such as Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area, I think having an article about tech companies is as reasonable as having an article about the New York metropolitan area. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: Guzzetta's article is a good example for discussion. It indicates that "tech company" is a current cultural concept. I could imagine there being an article on that, but there's heavy overlap with Startup company, and this cultural concept more closely matches that article than the examples here (Baidu, Samsung Electronics, Apple, Google, IBM, Lenovo, Huawei, Microsoft, and Oracle). Incidentally, this list is arbitrary and uncited.

The Guzzetta article cites widely varying definitions, with some using it for companies that sell technology, and others for companies that use technology for a competitive advantage. Those definitions have minimal overlap, and should probably not be discussed in the same article per WP:NOTADICT. In that case, we are encouraging the use of an ambiguous term by continuing to keep this article.

A short article isn't bad if it provides information, but this doesn't have any to offer. The abundance of incoming links indicates to me only that the cultural construct of "tech company" has some positive connotations that makes companies want to frame themselves in this way; it does not indicate to me that this is a meaningful term for analysis. Daask (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're encouraging an ambiguous term by documenting it. If we are using this term in our own articles—such as Apple Inc. where we write "[...] American multinational technology company headquartered [...]"—that's a pretty clear indication to me that it's at least a reasonable search term and redirect. That said, I don't think redirecting to an article such as start-up company makes sense since many technology companies are not start-up companies.

While Wikipedia is not a traditional dictionary, the English edition commonly has articles about words or phrases (e.g., 86 (term) or Read my lips: no new taxes).

And the list of technology companies mentioned is arbitrary in the sense that any list of examples will be arbitrary. But it's exactly that: a list of example technology companies. If you wanted, we could say "these companies appear on the Fortune 500 list of technology companies" or similar (ref). Again, that seems like a case for editing, not deleting.

Whether we agree that these companies should be called technology companies or whether we see ambiguity in what it means to be a technology company isn't really relevant to documenting the term/concept here, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. There are entire books on the subject of technology companies. James500 (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Agree with the above. Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Easily satisfies notability. AG47 ^Talk 20:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. After two relists there doesn't appear to be any appetite for deleting this right now, although I also note there were no outright pro-Keep votes. If anyone thinks this really needs to go feel free to renominate. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Source searches (Google) turn up nothing to suggest this band is of particular note per WP:BAND, merely Soundcloud links etc. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article mentions coverage in NME and Dazed & Confused in February 2006 or earlier, but doesn't specify when. Peter James (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter James: I noticed that but NME is completely online and a Google search for 'site:nme.com "snow white" "olly parker"' yields no results, so if we assume good faith, at the very most it will have been a mention was a passing one in a non-transcribed podcast. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NME wouldn't have had podcasts back then – I'm thinking the most likely mention of this band would have been in their weekly "ones to watch" column. But there were three acts highlighted every week, and I don't know how many years the column was running for, so there must have been literally hundreds of new bands mentioned in this column, which probably isn't going to make this particular one very notable. Anyway, without someone going to the British Library and going through the back copies of the magazine, it's going to be impossible to find out what the mention in the NME actually consisted of. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair point. If they were in the "ones to watch" column, it suggests that they're up-and-coming and we can expect more coverage but it seems that that failed to materialise. It could have just been transitory. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StraussInTheHouse: the further coverage probably failed to materialise because the band split up barely a year after forming. Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comment Hard to find any sources because of the name is common, although I managed to find a passing mention in Portugeuse - [2]. Not enough to keep I think, unless a source in NME or Dazed & Confused turns up, I think it would be hard to justify keeping it. Hzh (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found another one, [3], although I still don't think it qualifies under notability criteria, it might be possible to find more, so I'll remove my vote for delete for now and see if I can find more. Hzh (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article was speedily deleted by Bbb23 at 00:02, July 10, 2018 per WP:CSD#G5. Mz7 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:BLP of a screenwriter, who has neither a strong notability claim under our notability standards for screenwriters nor strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The strongest notability claim here is that he wrote the screenplay for a film that hasn't even started filming yet, and the references are IMDb, a YouTube video and a self-published profile on a LinkedIn clone for filmmakers -- none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which every creative professional is automatically entitled to have an article just because he and his work exist -- he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, verifying an achievement that constitutes a credible notability claim, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 3 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable actor who has had mostly minor roles and the most coverage he's received is dating someone who is questionably notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable - doesn't meet criteria for actor Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Pretty clearly fails WP:NACTOR for now. Nomader (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 06:07, 8 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

non-notable recording. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteSeems to fail WP:GNG. Redirect to Jack Hayford.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources to show it might pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG—White Shadows ^{New and improved!} 05:03, 10 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. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no delete votes (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG 2Joules (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could someone search Bengali-language sources for articles about this writer? Anything that would verify or disprove the claim of "best-sellers" would be particularly welcome. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable actress who won a non notable award, once. WP:GNG is unsatisfied. 2Joules (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoes not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO .And there is no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo substantial RS - does not meet WP:ACTORBIO Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:22, 6 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. Nominated by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, with no delete votes (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG 2Joules (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could someone search Bengali-language sources for articles about this writer? Anything that would verify or disprove the claim of "best-sellers" would be particularly welcome. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 6. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

unelected candidate for political office, not otherwise notable Vexations (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, which states "If elections are worthy of inclusion, it logically follows that information on the candidates in those elections should be included." This particular race has been recognized as one of the most significant US Congressional races of 2018.^[1][2] Furthermore, a significant portion of the article's content is drawn from reliable sources that were published years before the campaign began, demonstrating the subject's notability independent of the campaign.^[3][4][5][6]Cvm1983 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment you cited deprecated 12-year-old policy. Per WP:NPOL, candidates are not inherently notable. SportingFlyer talk 07:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that "a significant portion of the article's content is drawn from reliable sources that were published years before the campaign began". Here's the list of sources sorted by year:

• • • 2007
      • http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-11-16/business/0711150938_1_recycled-renewable-energy1 November 16, 2007
    • 2008
      • https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0915/054.html#6f8ebcdd6d661 Aug 28, 2008
    • 2009
      • https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/will-waste-heat-be-bigger-than-solar-5577#gs.eR_yxFU1 January 24, 2009
    • 2011
      • https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/about/fellowships/emerging-leaders/emerging-leaders-class-20111 2011
      • https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/ELReport2011_ImmigrationDebate.pdf1 2011
    • 2014
      • https://energynews.us/2014/06/06/midwest/qa-why-combined-heat-and-power-is-a-no-brainer/1 2014/06/06
    • 2016
      • https://strattonreport.com/news/recycled-energy-development-sells-121-mw-tri-generation-portfolio-ironclad-energy-partners/1 September 22, 2016
    • 2017
      • http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/ct-nvs-sean-casten-congress-roskam-st-0908-20170907-story.html1 September 7, 2017 4:50 PM
    • 2018
      • http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-bc-us--illinois-primary-news-guide-20180320-story.html1 March 22, 2018, 2:00 PM
      • http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20180207/submitted/302079523/1 2018/02/07
      • http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20180207/submitted/302079523/1 updated: 2/13/2018 12:21 PM
      • https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/6th-congressional-district-democratic-candidate-sean-casten-2018-illinois-primary/1 03/22/2018
      • https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/6th-congressional-district-democratic-candidate-sean-casten-2018-illinois-primary/1 03/22/2018
      • https://ieanea.org/2018/05/16/illinois-education-association-recommends-sean-casten-for-6th-congressional-seat/1 Maty 16, 2018
      • https://labortribune.com/illinois-afl-cio-general-election-endorsements/1 June 26, 2018
      • https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/2018/05/30/naral-pro-choice-america-endorses-sean-casten-for-congress/1 2018/05/30
    • undated, not related to candidacy
      • http://origin.lcv.org/endorsements/1 undated
      • https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/academics/graduate/mem/industry/ccc1 undated
      • https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=53974561&privcapId=53973670&previousCapId=53973670&previousTitle=Recycled%20Energy%20Development%2C%20LLC1 undated
    • undated, related to candidacy
      • http://climatehawksvote.com/candidate/sean-casten/ undated
      • http://elections.chicagotribune.com/candidates/responses/sean-casten.html1 undated
      • https://castenforcongress.com/blog/issue/gun-safety/1 undated
      • https://castenforcongress.com/blog/issue/health-care/1 undated
      • https://castenforcongress.com/blog/issue/immigration-reform/1 undated
      • https://castenforcongress.com/blog/issue/jobs-and-growing-our-economy/1 undated
      • https://castenforcongress.com/blog/issue/lgbtq-rights/1 undated
      • https://castenforcongress.com/blog/issue/our-environment/1 undated
      • https://castenforcongress.com/blog/issue/womens-rights/1 undated
      • https://content.sierraclub.org/voterguide/endorsements1 undated
      • https://jewishdems.org/candidate-profiles/1 undated

Vexations (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I mean I created the article as a redirect and someone took the liberty in actually creating the article. I've seen Wikipedia articles of failed U.S. House Rep. nominees and they're far shorter than this. Seeing Casten is the Democratic nominee and article is in good shape, I think he warrants an article. If not, keep it as a redirect how I normally intended the article to be until the election results are in. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I don't see anything in the article which is either about him independent of his campaign/feature articles on him or is non-routine political coverage. Feels promotional to me. A redirect is proper, adding necessary information to the election page. Delete if no redirect consensus. SportingFlyer talk 07:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. As the purpose of this page seems to be to promote a candidate. Certainly their "position" statements need to be removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or redirect. Creator is picking the wrong interpretation of what our notability standards for politicians means — it does not mean that every candidate is guaranteed his own standalone biographical article just for existing, it only means that the election article should include the candidates' names in e.g. tables of election results rather than just listing the winners. The actual rule for making a candidate eligible for a Wikipedia article is that either he must already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway, or the media coverage needs to explode to the point that he's got a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates (the Christine O'Donnell path.) But the vast majority of the references here are primary sources that do not support notability at all — and the little bit that's actually media coverage is simply local media coverage of the type and depth that's simply expected to routinely exist for every candidate everywhere, so it's not close to enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand how you can make the assertion that "the vast majority of the references here are primary sources" when only 7 of the 30 references are to the campaign website, and those were only used to describe his positions, for which there are very few other possible sources. This use of a campaign website appears to be common and generally uncontroversial. Aside from news coverage of the campaign (which now includes articles from several national publications), there are several articles from national publications (including a 1600-word feature in Forbes) that were published years before the campaign began.Cvm1983 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His own campaign site is not the only thing that gets counted as a primary source. "Corporate Collaboration Council" is also a primary source that does not assist in building notability, as it's his "staff" profile on the website of an organization he's directly affiliated with. "Bloomberg Executive Profile & Biography" is also a primary source that does not assist in building notability, because it's a routine directory in which any CEO of any company can have themselves added, so having a profile on there is not evidence that he's special. Any organizational endorsement that's "sourced" to that organization's own self-published website about itself, rather than to media coverage about the endorsement, is also a primary source that does not assist in building notability. Any source which is simply his standard "candidate profile" on a website where every candidate gets to have a candidate profile, or is a Q&A interview in which he's answering the same set of questions that every other candidate also gets, is also a primary source that does not assist notability, because he's in direct personal control of what it says about him. Primary sources doesn't just mean his own campaign website; it means any source where he has any form of personal affiliation or personal control over what the source says about him.

And "Energy News Network" and "Green Tech Media", while not primary sources per se, still aren't notability builders for different reasons: Energy News is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about something other than himself, so he fails to be the subject of the source, and Green Tech Media is a corporate blog, not an independent or reliable media outlet.

Literally the only citations here that would be acceptable reliable source coverage at all are #4, #5, #11, #12, #16 and #17 — all of the others are some form or other of primary sourcing that does not assist in establishing a candidate as notable enough. But Casten isn't the subject of 12, 16 or 17 — they all just glancingly mention his name in the process of being comprehensive coverage of all the Illinois primaries, rather than singling Casten out for dedicated attention in his own right, so they do not constitute evidence that his candidacy is a special case over and above everybody else who's also named in the same article. And #11 is routine coverage of his candidacy announcement in his own district's local newspaper, which does not help to establish a candidate as notable because every candidate always gets one of those, so it still doesn't mark his candidacy out as somehow more notable than everybody else's candidacy.

Which means that ultimately I can evaluate notability here solely on the basis of #4 and #5. And "preexisting notability for other reasons" is not covered off for a political candidate just because you can show one or two pieces of coverage that predate the candidacy — if he weren't a candidate at all, and you were trying to get this article into Wikipedia purely on "clean energy entrepreneur" grounds, those two sources would not have been enough coverage all by themselves to get him over GNG for that. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018. Candidates for the U.S. House should be redirected to the appropriate page about the campaign. Wikipedia should not be a repository of campaign material and information. All relevant (reliably sourced) information about the nature of the campaign, including notable endorsements and polling, can be placed on the page about the election. Enos733 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Notability. I can see an argument for removing specific policy positions but I see no reason to remove the rest of the article regarding his work in the clean energy field. These sections are supported by plenty of independent sources and news articles, some of which are before his involvement in politics. He has been involved in some significant organizations and discussions in the clean energy field and I see no reason why that wouldn't be sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I added some additional sourcing to the article that might help. A link to the campaign site would probably be sufficient for current policy positions but the rest should be kept. Bucketship (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable before he became a candidate, and still not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018. Simply being on the ballot for an election does not make you notable. I agree with everyone here who has cited WP:NPOL.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 05:13, 10 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. The consensus is that this topic has not achieved the lasting significance required to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events. Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See no coverage for this incident beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Despite the article has presence on Wiki for years, the failure to gain any notability justifies delete. My Lord (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Abundant in-depth coverage from several reliable sources. Incidents such as these typically lead to investigations, trials and lengthy discussions. NOTNEWS does not apply. 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Eastmain (talk • contribs)
• Delete.Fails WPNOTNEWS , WP:ROUTINE and lacks WP:LASTING coverage after 2009 . Sadly these type of incidents are routine in the Kashmir conflict and most cases there is no followup .Now we cannot have standalone article for each and every death in the conflict. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete article created by SPA following the recent news coverage of that time. But time has proven that subject totally fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good catches by the nom on this string of articles. Surely, recentism is responsible for the creation of these articles, but NOTNEWS explains clearly why routine coverage does not produce notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The incident continued to be covered by WP:RS even 8 years after it took place, and the inquiry remains open (see the article refs). With regard to the "routine" coverage claim, this claim for deletion is based on a misreading of policy. The policy is aimed against entertainment news. Specifically, WP:NOTNEWS reads "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This case on the contrary is a notable army crime. Besides, this is clearly not "routine news reporting" on "announcements, sports, or celebrities". This is routine news reporting a major army crime and therefore WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. I can only recommend re-reading the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Finally, the unsound arguments in favor of NOTNEWS are trumped by WP:NCRIME, which reads «Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act», so keeping this article ought to be adjudicated by default, as clearly the coverage has been extensive and continues as of 2017. XavierItzm (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is regarding crossfire casualties, I dont agree with calling the incident as an Army crime. Please see the reply by Pharaoh below. I concur with his observations, In light of these would you like to update your !Vote. --DBigXray 19:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of indication that why this incident deserves an article given the lack of coverage days after the occurrence. Orientls (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The one of the Ref added here by another keep vote is not connected with this incident but with a completely different 2017 incident of manhandling of four female members.Further Kashmir Life is not WP:RS.Hence the claim that it is covered in WP:RS even after 8 years is incorrect.Further this involves the Indian army and it comes within Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act hence no public trial and is seen as a Army operations and and hence WP:NCRIME does not apply.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:LASTING. If there is some content worth keeping, that can be selectively merged into Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS. Bharatiya29 18:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS 2 civilians killed in crossfire between the terrorists and the army. The incident got expected mention in the media. But this is not enough notability for WP:EVENT. WP:ROUTINE and lacks WP:LASTING coverage. Agree with Pharaoh--DBigXray 19:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-NOTNEWS.∯WBG^converse 06:30, 11 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. The consensus is that while this topic might be suitable for a newspaper, its lack of lasting significance suggests that it may not be suitable for an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Doodhipora killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

See no coverage for this incident beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Despite the article has presence on Wiki for years, the failure to gain any notability justifies delete. My Lord (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Abundant in-depth coverage from several reliable sources. Incidents such as these typically lead to investigations, trials and lengthy discussions. NOTNEWS does not apply. 23:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Eastmain (talk • contribs)
• delete article created by SPA following the recent news coverage of that time. But further evidence overtime has proven that subject totally fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with above. Lack of notability and significance. Kraose (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per WP:NOTNEWS Ankit2 (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails to meet WP:RS criteria (and WP:NOTNEWS as cited by other uses above). Out of the seven sources cited, at least four do not even meet the criteria for being reliable sources. --RaviC (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS Article about 4 civilians killed in crossfire between army and militants, and then ongoing case nothing that makes it notable. The incident got expected mention in the media. But this is not enough notability for WP:EVENT (I clarify that I have been a significant contributor to this article)--DBigXray 11:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS. Bharatiya29 18:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS , WP:ROUTINE and lacks WP:LASTING . Sadly these type of incidents are routine in the Kashmir conflict and most cases there is no followup..Further this involves the Indian army and it comes within Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and is seen as a Army operations and there is no followup .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-NOTNEWS.∯WBG^converse 06:30, 11 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. The consensus is that this topic has not achieved the lasting significance required to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for events. This decision does not prejudice the creation of a broad list article for these kinds of events in general, as Vanamonde93 suggested. Mz7 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See no coverage for this incident beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Despite the article has presence on Wiki for years, the failure to gain any notability justifies delete. My Lord (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Incidents such as these typically lead to investigations, trials and lengthy discussions. NOTNEWS does not apply. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This incident was relevant only during July 2013. We are in July 2018 now. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.Fails WPNOTNEWS , WP:ROUTINE and lacks WP:LASTING coverage after July 2013. Sadly these type of incidents are routine in the Kashmir conflict and most cases there is no followup .Now we cannot have standalone article for each and every death or firing in the conflict Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete article created by SPA following the recent news coverage of that time. No longer applicable and totally WP:NOTNEWS. Sdmarathe (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a claim to lasting notability is hard to make here, but these incidents aren't trivialities either; the most reasonable course is to merge them all to a "list of deaths from police firing in Jammu and Kashmir" or something along those lines. As an aside, it's a bit rich to refer to an editor with 38,000+ edits as a "single purpose account" and argue to delete on those grounds. Vanamonde (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of search results after the initial reporting of the incident. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS. Bharatiya29 18:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS Violent crowd attacked forces and in the ensuing firing 4 rioters got killed. The incident got expected mention in the media. But this is not enough notability for WP:EVENT--DBigXray 19:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-NOTNEWS.∯WBG^converse 06:31, 11 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. Mz7 (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Don't see any evidence if this subject had any coverage after April 2016. Nominating per WP:NOTNEWS. My Lord (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Abundant in-depth coverage from several reliable sources. Incidents such as these typically lead to investigations, trials and lengthy discussions. NOTNEWS does not apply. 23:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Eastmain (talk • contribs)
• Delete.Fails WPNOTNEWS , WP:ROUTINE and lacks WP:LASTING coverage after April 2016. Sadly these type of incidents are routine in the Kashmir conflict and most cases there is no followup .Now at best these can be included if there is a list not clearly not notable for a standalone article. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete article created by SPA following the recent news coverage of that time. But now further observations show that subject totally fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sdmarathe (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In concurrence with what Pharaoh of Wizards said. Ankit2 (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If Wikipedia covers multiple murders in the United States, it ought to cover multiple killings in India. Murder is more notable than bicycle theft. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Equivalent retaliation is irrelevant. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING are the concerns. If an incident about bicycle robbery has received coverage for years then it will have it's own article. Lorstaking (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of Murders. In case you are not aware there exists a seperate site known as Murderpedia, which Wikipedia is not. --DBigXray 19:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not meet WP:LASTING. Selective merge into Human rights abuses in Kashmir if some content merits merge. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS. Bharatiya29 18:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per WP:NOTNEWS Violent crowd attacked forces and in the ensuing firing 5 rioters got killed. The incident got expected mention in the media. But this is not enough notability for WP:EVENT--DBigXray 19:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-NOTNEWS.∯WBG^converse 06:30, 11 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 soft delete. Due to low participation in this discussion, this article may be undeleted on request. Mz7 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. This was written by an editor named "SoLuvablePublicity", so it is clearly some form of conflict of interest editing -- and two of its three sources are advertorial profiles on user-generated artist PR websites which do not count as notability-assisting sources, while the third is a dead link to what appears to have been a fashion blog. Nothing stated here passes any of NMUSIC #2 through #12, and the sources do not represent reliable source coverage for the purposes of getting him over the "notable because sources exist" bar. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. While a fair amount of discourse has occurred here, only three users have actually provided opinions. Furthermore, after two relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has arisen. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is a promotional book report about a primary source, with some SYN filler and a "newsy" hook about retraction and republication. There are wacky promotional claims like "there is no other dietary pattern with such a strong evidence of cardiovascular benefit". About the retraction/republication -- there will be plenty of news-cycle driven refs in the popular media about the retraction/republication which are a) not WP:MEDRS and b) not independent of that event. It will take time for reviews to come out that deal with the revised paper and we do not know yet what "accepted knowledge" is with regard to this paper in light of the revision so this is WP:TOOSOON with regard to that. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions Isn't PREDIMED the subject of these two New York Times articles dated 2013 and 2018? If yes, how can it not pass WP:GNG and be WP:TOOSOON? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/health/mediterranean-diet-can-cut-heart-disease-study-finds.html
  2. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/health/mediterranean-diet-heart-disease.html

See WP:MEDREV - we don't use popular media that way for content about health. Which is exactly what I said in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... What do you make of the results in Google scholar or HighBeam then? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar does not give you MEDRS results. You need to search pubmed and look for reviews, or look for clinical guidelines and the like. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No judgement either way about keeping or deleting (yet), but I note that the deletion nomination conflates the PREDIMED trial – the nominal subject of the article, involving a fairly large, randomized prospective trial of various dietary interventions – with a recently-retracted-and-republished NEJM paper based on the PREDIMED data set.
  A cursory PubMed search finds more than 130 publications that mention "PREDIMED" in their titles. A lot of those appear to be analyses based on the PREDIMED data and trial population, along with some commentary on the trial.
  In other words, while the NEJM paper attracted a lot of media attention (both when it was initially published in 2013, and after its recent retraction and republication) it was definitely not the only output of the PREDIMED trial. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a point well taken (although the primary source references are not useful to us). The nomination is basically TNT. This page is not a WP article but a book report and a promotional one at that. On top of that, given the uncertainty now about the what the results of this trial mean, we should trash this and repost when that is more clear. It might take a year for things to shake out. This is yet another reason why building a page around primary sources is a bad idea. Even if we were to try to rewrite this now using secondary sources, what would we say, at this time? Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, I'm not really sure what you mean when you keep repeating "book report". Perhaps you could stick to a less figurative description?)

Right now, I'm inclined towards WhatamIdoing's perspective at WT:MED about how we should address clinical trials on Wikipedia. I'm just going to quote his comment here:

Articles about clinical trials should usually be treated more like historical events than like scientific research. The question for the article to answer is "Who did what, when, and where?" rather than "Did the result get statistically significant results while following accepted scientific standards?" In some cases, the fact of a paper being retracted is what makes the event notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the question we should be asking about this trial (or any other) is whether or not it was sufficiently notable for coverage, not necessarily whether its results and interpretation have been fully settled. Now that's its own can of worms—how should we evaluate 'notability' for clinical trials? Size of population, duration of trial and followup, importance of the clinical question(s), involvement of reputable organizations, and existence of independent coverage might all be factors to consider; I'm sure there are others, as well. While a trial's result (if known) is certainly a factor, it should not be the exclusive criterion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See book report. It is something grade school students do in the US. It isn't colorful it is what this page was, when I nominated it.

If we are going to treat it like some past event, then we should find references about the trial and summarize them. The question becomes, are their sufficient independent sources with significant discussion of the topic? Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but I know what a book report is—I'm just trying to figure out exactly how it applies here, and how it's a negative description in this context. (I presume you're intending it to be a pejorative description.) A well-written "book report" is probably how we should aim to cover most topics: a factual summary of major 'characters' and events, followed by a discussion of important 'related works' and relevant context to establish notability and impact. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very blatant WP:GNG pass. In addition to the very detailed two New York Times articles already mentioned above, in addition to the hundreds (thousands) of results in Google Scholar, to the 130 results in PubMed, I would just like to share a couple of articles I found in El Mundo, the Spanish newspaper: 2006 2013 2014 and in El Pais, the Spanish newspaper: 2004 2013 2018. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER, WP:ENT and after a review of the sources, WP:GNG (none are about her.) SportingFlyer talk 16:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tia is a well known cosplayer within the Washington, D.C area that cohosted the Funk Parade, was one of the cospalyers featured in Four Days at Dragon*Con and featured on the Black Girl Nerds for the 28 days of black cosplay. Her interview on WJLA-TV in DC about her should pass the WP:GNG and WP:ENT because it established her as known cosplayer in the DMV. Her shortfilm also won in the Cinemax sponsored the Urban Action Showcase and Expo that is known in the martial arts world. This alone should pass WP:FILMMAKER. Livinginthepink (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:ENT and WP:FILMMAKER require more than what's shown here. The source cited to show she won an award has 9 and 10 Youtube views, and Wikipedia requires more than one local television interview to pass WP:GNG.

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG, the WP:FILMMAKER , and the WP:ENTERTAINER. -- LACaliNYC✉ 00:48, 2 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Duplicate of the article CapeRay Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Better merge and add anew heading in CapeRay article. Mia Watson (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• What new heading? I cant see anything which is not already included. Rathfelder (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE I am also including the twin page, CapeRay, in this nomination.

CapeRay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

That page was created on the same day by the same person as a duplicate of this page. They are both obvious promotion and SEO work and need to be cleaned out of WP. Pinging User:Rathfelder and User:Mia Watson the only people who have !voted so far Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete both (in case that is not clear) Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both There is no indication of notability--just press releases, including some from the sponsoring university. DGG ( talk ) 13:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

• Keep - I redid the article somewhat, added some sources, and redirected the CapeRay Medical page to just CapeRay. Judging by the amount of stuff I found, it seems to be pretty well known in South Africa. Where are the refs? (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both: Does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft based on WP:SPIP sourcing. Just a private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPIP sourcing, are you kidding me? I added sources to locally reputable independent coverage (see the sources from Enterprise Africa, Africa Outlook, and IT Web), and it seems awfully eurocentric to reject them as mere self-promotion. The company is well known in South Africa, there is plenty of information about it, and it is a pioneer in breast cancer diagnostics. That is enough to pass NCORP and the article (CapeRay) should stand as well. Where are the refs? (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. It's sufficiently notable for an article, and I never suggested it wasnt.Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, so shouldn't the redirect already suffice?Where are the refs? (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Small company. Sources in article are mainly PR driven or not independent of the company. BEFORE doesn't show much else.Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as per above. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and are all based on company announcements and other promo PR. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both CapeRay Medical and CapeRay.
  Both articles were simultaneously created with near identical content by same single-purpose user (see Special:Contributions/Andrewb1000). And today, +7 years after creations, there is still no real meat, - in fact: The company's own story telling (http://www.caperay.com/index.php/our-history) is showing comparable encyclopedic value.
  I think this is a case of someone having created an article (identical twins) with sufficiently bland verbiage to not violate NPOV, and Wikipedians never having bothered to check notability. - Notability or not, if an article has failed the test of time, not providing encyclopedic value to the world, then: Delete it from Wikipedia (a potentially stale rephrased write-up of a primary source, does not serve any reader's interest). -- DexterPointy (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only PR or not independent references found Heshiv (talk) 10:27, 9 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 procedural close per WP:DENY. The OP was identified and blocked as a sock. WP:DENY dictates that this be closed on those grounds. This close is w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination should anyone be so inclined. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only coverage seems to be from February 2018, and that too is pretty trivial. It appears to be an everyday baking company that introduced a new product that was picked up by a couple of media outlets for thier daily puff piece. Not notable enough for wikipedia. 2Joules (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added additional sources for this bakery which has been in existence since 1923, including this from 2011. There are enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment That article fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on information provided by the company and a company officer, not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND.
• Keep Good history and track, I am sure there's more even when the internet wasn't discovered. Mia Watson (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC) SockSTRIKE 2Joules (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's not the test for notability. There must be two "intellectually independent" references to establish notability. So article that extensively rely on information from company sources without intellectually independent analysis/opinion (like the article from 2011 above) fails WP:ORGIND.
• Delete and possibly rewrite since the only notability if any is the single product Pretzilla, that would be the more appropriate subject. DGG ( talk ) 10:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not convinced that that references don't exist. Unfortunately I don't have access to the books and I can't say either way whether they establish notability or not but this and this exists and (at least) mention the bakery. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references and expanded the article a bit. I have also posted a ((requested move)) to Pretzilla Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eastmain, the requested move failed. I agree that an article on Pretzilla might stand a better chance of meeting notability guidelines that the company. Do you still believe the company is notable in its own right? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a single reference that I can access meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references added by Eastmain may help the establishment of the notability of Pretzilla, but it doesn't establish the notability of the company. As it stands, notability is not inherited. Neither is Wikipedia a substitute for a corporate website or a Yellow Pages. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThere are most definitely more sources to be added that support notability, including this article from July 2018 Baking Business "Pretzilla: Creating a Story Behind the Brand". Other companies also have very similar entries that are not challenged, including Amoroso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoroso%27s_Baking_Company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. The reference relies entirely on quotations from company execs with no intellectually independent anaylsis/opinion, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. The references also is not significant coverage, fails WP:SIGCOV and contains no in-depth information about the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. If there are other sources, please list them and we can see if they meet the criteria. Also, [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|Wikipedia has lots of articles] and if you feel they don't meet the criteria, feel free to nominate them for deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Genuine question - how could a profile of a company by that industry's leading publication not be considered 1) independent and 2) notable? By necessity, a profile will almost always include questions and answers from the company's executives. It also demonstrates an independent reporter's opinion that they found the company notable enough to profile. You cannot purchase these profiles. I will endeavor to add more sources to meet your criteria, I'm just having trouble understanding why the current sources are not sufficient. Thanks for your diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Hi Jayfish420, please read WP:NCORP and in particular the WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH sections. I suspect you are misinterpreting the definition of "independent". It does not mean that the publisher and the company have no "links" as such - it means that the opinions/analysis provided in the publication is *intellectually* independent. In the reference you provided, there is no independent opinion/analysis, everything has been provided by the company or company sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Thanks for that guidance. I'm working on uploading appropriate supporting material now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfish420 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Remember, there are a number of ways to prove a topics relevance, outside of sourcing. The company's 'Pretzilla' brand appears to be the leader in pretzel buns. Through an online shopping search for pretzel buns, 'Pretzilla' brand consistently is at the top or very near it across in different shopping sites.12. Henry ^TALK 03:36, 11 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable under company and organization notability guidelines. Some sources in Google and has $10 million value but this is not enough to pass the guideline.

Extensively covered by www.syracuse.com and other marketing firms, but little to no independent news. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not much in the article - a gaming card maker (founded 1998) gets a $10 million investment. That's it. Raising funds does not pass WP:NCORP, neither does being around since 1998. At best "not yet". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG .It was founded in 1998 with a $10 million investment but it is not clear how is specific company is notable amongst thousands of its same size.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hopeless Fountain Kingdom. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless Fountain Kingdom World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. --woodensuperman 15:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Information like this is better left at fansites. A few individual shows in this tour received some news coverage, and Billboard reported on how much money was made, but that information could be mentioned briefly at the album article Hopeless Fountain Kingdom. Per WP:NTOUR the tour did not receive coverage as an entity in its own right, beyond individual gigs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Merge into the article about the album, as it is a major factor of the album and announcement articles from independent sources about the tour's final leg can be found through a Google News search. However, it's not enough for a separate article about the tour. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:21, 10 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still the Same Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Just a list of tour dates and a set list. --woodensuperman 15:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Advance announcements of the tour got some pretty good media notice (e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7]) as their first tour in a while, but even those are still little more than brief mentions of the tour's existence followed by lists of dates. Per WP:NTOUR, the tour does not have enough notability as an event in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:32, 4 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. Nomination withdrawn. Article was Speedy Deleted (non-admin closure) scope_creep (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Weiss (W2O Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think he is not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Of the 13 references, 3 are listings sites, 5 are about the company. Of the others, the sentence Jim Weiss is founder, chairman, CEO, and owner of W2O Group, a top-ranked independent network appears in two of them, indicating it self written or press release. The rest are primary source, no secondary sources. scope_creep (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (if some admin doesn't speedy it first). single purpose account, promotional, notability issues. Smells like paid editing to me. -- œ^™ 08:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:Athaenara speedy deleted the article last night I think, so this discussion is moot. Withdrawn nomination scope_creep (talk) 10:00, 4 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 01:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]