< 14 June	16 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suswani Maa[edit]

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

This article has no references and is unverifiable. It is not clear whether this is meant to be presented as historical fact or as an account of a legend. Different sorts of verification are required for history and for legend, but both require references.

Google search does not turn up any reliable sources, only vanity hits related to this piece.

Draftifying might be appropriate, but this was already draftified once and moved to article space by the author, so it is time for a regular Articles for Deletion discussion, with draftifying as an option only if the author agrees. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creator clearly doesn't understand what an article needs to be acceptable for publication here. WP:Golden rule would be a good start (and that page is referenced frequently in AFC rejections). ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article duplicates equally poorly cited content at Dugar. It looks like her name is also transliterated as Susvani and Susani, in which case the temple that she is associated with at Morkhana meets the notability bar as a a protected monument (at List_of_Monuments_of_National_Importance_in_Rajasthan as the questionably named redlink Jain Temple of Susani Goddess), with reasonable evidence of book coverage, and she could be covered under that. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Suswani is a Kuladevata (see [1]) in Morkhana, Rajasthan, a village that does not have a wikipedia page. Kuladevata are family/clan/lineage deities, and it isn't clear to me that they are all suitable for encyclopedia articles (if a family isn't, then the family traditions generally wouldn't be). In this case, it seems she is a goddess for the an entire, if tiny, village, but I'm not sure and I can't find a RS for this. As for an article for the temple, I'd go with Jain Temple of the Goddess Susani (or Suswani or Susvani, depending on the taste of the article creator). Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This object of this article seems to be to host an image. However the text (with no references) has the feel of the synopsis of a film or TV scenario, not an encyclopaedic article. If someone else can provide a suitable merge target, I would not wish to object. However this deserves TNT: delete and start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 20 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Odell[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable as actor; tragedy of his death at such an early age does not confer notability, per se. Quis separabit? 22:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet WP:GNG when he was alive, and does not become notable just by dying so young. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as his most significant role only appeared in 8 out of 101 series episodes of The Goldbergs, so does not pass WP:NACTOR, the coverage is WP:BLP1E, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whenever debates like this arise I always see them be kept because the subject received enough international attention from the reporting about their death. I don’t necessarily agree with it but if others have been kept for that reason we should at least keep consistent in its enforcement. So I vote keep. Rusted AutoParts 04:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only thing the subject is notable for is their death, then it falls under WP:BLP1E. Ifnord (talk) 12:55, 22 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fyle Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Kleuske (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you kidding me? It passes primary criteria for WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. A search from Here turns out a lot. Edidiong (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I agree with what Mredidiongekong a.k.a. Edidiong said above. This article definitely passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. However, the article should definitely be improved. 344917661X (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; a minor tech startup vying for attention. Sources offered in the link above (as "Here") are routine notices; passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about what its sources describe from the May 2018 press release as a "SaaS-based expense management software startup". Routine 2017-8 announcements about company funding, product announcements and the most passing of mentions under "Alternatives" in an Irish Times product round up are insufficient to demonstrate the substantial coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Negligible coverage. Not notable enough. Promotional stuff. Possibility of WP:COI. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per Edidiong and 344917661X. Satisfies GNG. Calling coverage "routine" is a ridiculous non-argument. The fact that some receives coverage on a regular basis makes it more notable, not less. Anyway, GNG always trumps ORG. James500 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @James500: Notable per article creator? The "routine" is to be found at WP:CORPDEPTH and covers pretty much all of the sources googled. Please specify one or more that are not covered by WP:CORPDEPTH, since I find it hard to take this seriously and not view it as a plain vanilla objection w/o any merit or back-up. Going over your AfD contributions only strengthens this impression. Kleuske (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The key words were "GNG always trumps ORG". If you bother to read the lead section of N, you will notice that a topic that satisfies GNG does not need to satisfy any SNG. Bear in mind that the talk pages of SNG have limited participation compared to WT:N. Bear in mind also that we act according to consensus, not what a minority have got into an obscure backwater guideline while the majority were not watching. James500 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @James500: Hmmm.... Being curious I searched for that phrase and curiously, the only thing that comes up is... your objections to various AfD nominations. Please point out this sentiment in the guideline, because I missed it (and so did the Wikipedia search engine). Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Notability says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (emphasis added). The key words there are "either" and "or". If a topic that satisfies GNG also had to satisfy any ORG, those words would respectively read "both" and "and". Certain editors have tried to change the wording of that passage for years, and consensus at WT:N has always been strongly against any change, because the wider community does not want GNG to be overridden by SNG that purport to restrict GNG. James500 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not "trumps" and the article does not meet WP:GNG, since there's no significant, indepth coverage, apart from run of the mill mentions about investments. Kleuske (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the people that voted delete. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH as of now. Edidiong (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and K.e.coffman. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON, as it currently stands it's simply not demonstrably notable. Ifnord (talk) 12:59, 22 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional extraterrestrials by form[edit]

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

Unsourced, original research, no apparent notability of the topic (form of fictional aliens). Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mammalian alien species (2nd nomination). Sandstein 11:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure unreferenced list cruft that groups aliens by subjective criteria._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The PROD for List of mammalian aliens expires soon. wumbolo ^^^ 21:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:LISTN, being covered in sources such as Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials. There's plenty of blue-links and, as this is the master list, it should be the main focus of future development of this notable topic. It parallels the List of fictional extraterrestrials and so maybe there's some scope for merger. As there's lots of material, there are plenty of alternatives to deletion which it is our policy to prefer. Andrew D. (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm of the opinion that the content of this list should be killed with fire, but, yeah, it could theoretically be a useful redirect for navigational purposes. It should also be noted that Andrew's above !vote follows his recent pattern of AFD comments that are so obviously disruptive that they come across as deliberate trolling with the intention of pushing someone into opening a discussion as to whether he should be TBANned: linking to the actual master list in the same post as mislabeling this as the master list is ... just wrong. As for "alternatives to deletion": AFD is (per pretty overwhelming consensus here and here) the proper forum for community discussion of whether an article should be redirected without its contents preserved in the live version of the encyclopedia, as there is no other place for it short of boldly making an edit one knows can be reverted on the grounds of it being de facto spontaneous deletion and therefore needing to be brought to AFD (cf. [2]: people procedurally oppose RMs with "userfy" or "draftify" as the intended result on the grounds that these are frequently AFD/MFD results and I haven't found any discussion where that process actually was supported by consensus). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely original research and there is only one reference in the article. 344917661X (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Extreme fancruft with poor sourcing and subjective inclusion criteria. The title is too vague to be useful and the content is not able to be merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 12:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Criteria are entirely subjective and unsourced. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 21:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fictional extraterrestrials. Perhaps some of the information can be merged there later on. A lot of the blue links are just redirects. Dream Focus 06:51, 19 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan (company)[edit]

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

A French health-insurance start-up with 20 employees. Like lots of other self-promoting attempts to get onto Wikipedia, though this one is propped up by French churnalism, warmed-over press releases, and primary sources. Calton | Talk 13:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep For now we can keep, article have some Independent referencesbut mostly are not in English Heshiv (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't the "non-English" part, it's the "churnalism"/"warmed-over press release"/"not in-depth" part, which you can get a sense of even through Google Translate. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I happen to concur with the nomination for deletion. It's essentially an advert for the company that whilst well written, factual and sourced, does not actually strengthen the case for notability and subsequently does not suggest inclusion as an article is warranted. By the article's reckoning, there were under 8000 health customers as of April so doesn't seem large enough yet to be able to establish notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable company that does not meet WP:CORP. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Company is notable in France, I have seen pages with translation from the parent articles, not sure if we can base an article on EN Wikipedia from foreign language notability. Mia Watson (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete If it were notble in France or anywhere else it would be notable for the purposes of the enWP, if it met our standards. But it is not--it fails our current standard of NCORP. The most that might be said is that it might possibly be notable someday, which is not enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 22 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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ClickDealer[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP SmartSE (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Opppse~~ Keep- I don't know how it does not meet WP:CORP, as the nominator has not explained it. However, the article does meet WP:GNG, which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article meets these requirements Wikipedia guidelines clearly override project guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: Despite superficial appearances, there is only one reliable source cited in the article and that doesn't even mention the company! Others are press releases/rehashes [3] [4] or so obscure [5] that they're of no use for demonstrating notability. Which did you think were enough to meet GNG? SmartSE (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also be aware that the criteria for references to establish notability are clear that the interpretation of "independent of the subject" means that the references must be intellectually independent and not rely directly on company-produced information/announcements/etc. This includes interviews/quotations from company sources. None of the references provided meet the criteria.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat What is an opppse? Seafox289 (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after a quick run through the sources, delete as per nom. SportingFlyer talk 05:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Just an ad placement masquerading as an article; "...won the Publishers’ Choice of Network or Platform nomination at the European Performance Marketing Awards 2016" says it all. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much is available online to determine general notability. Mia Watson (talk) 16:26, 21 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everwise[edit]

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

A directory like listing on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even come close, agree with nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or an internet Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG upcoming at best a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:55, 21 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Wave[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is hard to find sources (mountain wave brings up tons of spam) but this defunct has been company fails GNG. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:19, 21 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MessageLabs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete and Merge No indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. The mention that it was ordered by a court to produce a court-approved press release does not meet the criteria for notability. Information should be merged with Symantec. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this repetitive corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. The company / product was not significant enough to warrant a merge, so I'd "oppose" that. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. Satisfies GNG easily due to coverage in the sources cited in the article, GNews, GBooks, GScholar and elsewhere. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, because there is a valid target for merger and redirection. James500 (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

??!There are zero citations in Google Scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

There are papers by MessageLabs that have been cited by others. So for example, their Annual Security Report for 2010 has 22 citations. I agree that most of their notability is from sources outside GScholar, but having their papers cited does contribute a little. James500 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- advertising brochure for a non-notable company. Reyk _YO! 11:11, 22 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 delete. Transwiki applies to moves to other Wikimedia projects, not Wikia. – Joe (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voice (comics)[edit]

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG, even as an entry on another page. It's better suited for Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: V. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The characters list is not supposed to be indiscriminate - it's for characters who aren't independently notable but are linked by numerous other articles. It provides a central location for the character to be described so those articles don't have to explain them. As far as I can see, this is a minor character used mostly in relation to Ant-Man. He can be clearly described inline when needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , but would also be open to a transwiki to preserve the content if needed. I was leaning toward merge until I re-read the article. All of the sources are to other comics; I would agree that there should be at least one or two sources establishing the character's independent notability to warrant mention on the list. That being said, someone obviously worked hard on this, and I'm sure there's a good Wikia that could use this information before we actually delete it. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:17, 22 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 keep. Enigma^msg 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smyrna High School (Delaware)[edit]

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

Non-notable school fails WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLRFC. Prod was removed. TM 18:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Keep no support for deletion so far other than nominator but this is dragging on so not going to be a speedy Article is rapidly being filled in with content and refs. Deletion is based on the notability of the subject, not the content of the article. Nominator appears not to have followed WP:BEFORE. Meters (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:SCHOOLRFC is not an argument that can be used to justify deletion. No-one is claiming that the school is notable simply because it exists. It was stub, it needed work, and sufficient material has been added to the article to show WP:GNG is passed. This is a case of WP:ARTN. Meters (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several references. This school has received significant news coverage for over 100 years. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All high schools are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply incorrect per WP:SCHOOLRFC.--TM 12:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources in the article which IMHO as a whole makes the article meet GNG, I will just add not all schools are notable and WP:SCHOOLRFC proves that, Anyway meets GNG so keep. –Davey2010^Talk 14:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sources show significant coverage. Newspapers.com articles show good-faith searches into the school's history, so WP:FUTON could apply. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because it is a secondary school, and it is stupid for wikipedia to shoot itself in the foot about these. --Doncram (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the above reasons. It is blatantly obvious that secondary schools are considered to be notable by most editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above; meets GNG through coverage. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some editors above are suggesting that as this is a high school than it is automatically notable, if that is the case, then wikipedia should have around 400,000 high school articles, i have seen afds where universities/colleges have been nominated as they dont have appropriate sources so, as other editors have also said above, this is not a given. (btw, i am not saying this is the case here). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:SCHOOLRFC clearly says that high schools cannot be presumed to be notable merely due to their existence. On the other hand, it is also not a valid criterion for deletion, even though the nominator seems to believe it is. It's not a criterion at all. Any arguments above that the school is notable simply because it exists are invalid, but there's nothing in SCHOOLRFC that a school has to pass to be notable. It also says "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD" Was this done by the nominator? Meters (talk) 05:34, 20 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. G7 ansh 666 18:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

جنبش ماری اسکلودوسکا کوری[edit]

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

I wanted to translate a current page in english wikipedia to Farsi and I made a mistake by creating it in english version of wiki instead of fa.wikipedia.org and now I cannot use the edit link of the language part of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions page since I cannot move the farsi version into articles because this page is already available Milad.Heidari.koochi (talk) 17:56, 15 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taagepera Church[edit]

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

Per WP:GEOFEAT, buildings need to be cultural/national heritage sites or be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Other than being built in 1674, the article makes no claim of notability. It makes no claim that it is a cultural heritage site, a national heritage site, or a tourist attraction. I also have been unable to find verifiable, reliable, third-party sources that state the church's notability (the sources on the page all have issues). I will admit that I cannot read Finnish, but the other language versions of these articles are equally as short. In my opinion, the notability of the building is not established, and thus deletion is appropriate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The building is registered in the Kultuurimälestiste riiklik register (National Register of Cultural Monuments), Estonia's counterpart of the National Register of Historic Places in the United States. I think that being on such a national register is enough to prove notability. "23077 Taagepera kirik". National Register of Cultural Monuments. I have added information about the listing to the article and started an infobox. The references are in Estonian, which Google Translate can handle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A church from the 17th century ought to be able to pass WP:GNG, and Eastmain's hard work shows that this does. Brad v 13:37, 16 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outlook Training Organisation[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Article contains no references to independent secondary sources. Google search returns only one hit to their own website. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 16:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources; fails to meet corporate notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: source searches show little in the way of sustained, in-depth coverage to warrant passing WP:NCORP. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dearth of significant coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a country mile. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:07, 22 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 delete and redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters#Clay Evans. Sandstein 20:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Evans (One Tree Hill)[edit]

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

1. It does not cite any secondary references.
2. It is ALL plot summary.
3. There is a One Tree Hill wiki. Shaneymike (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:FANCRUFT. Secondary sources are required. Plot summaries do not fulfill that obligation.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 22 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 delete. Sandstein 20:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn James[edit]

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

1. It does not cite any secondary references.
2. It is ALL plot summary.
3. There is a One Tree Hill wiki. Shaneymike (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:03, 16 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 delete. Sandstein 20:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vik Bakhru[edit]

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

Previous article speedy deleted back in April on grounds of G11 and G12.This one is very similar if not identical by same creator. I asked then on his talk page about his relationship with subject - no response. Copyvio of http://consejosano.com/about-us/ but creator has removed speedy delete tag- see revision history. The article should be deleted and salted as its non notable, copyvio and promotional and possibly fails BLP too Lyndaship (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information is just basic facts about the individual. It's not intended to be promotional. What if anything will make it work? I noticed a lot of the pages for individuals on Wikipedia are similar with the same type of information and modeled this similar to those pages. Please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananazed (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bio of a pretty ordinary businessperson, fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable doctor/businessperson. The article doesnt even make any claims to notability. Its a BLP with only one single citation! And only one sentence out of the material used as a reference is actually about the subject; there is only one cited fact in the whole article. It should properly be gutted as an unreferenced BLP. I couldn't find much more; there appear to be only run of the mill one sentence passing mentions, or stock potted self provided bios avaliable (oddly similar to this article strangely enough). Certainly nothing approaching the in depth and independent sources needed to sustain a proper article. Curdle (talk) 14:29, 22 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 delete. Sandstein 20:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Team to Beat[edit]

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

"Team to beat" is a common expression in sports, one that would probably be more appropriate on Wiktionary per WP:NEOLOGISM. The article was created through WP:RECENTISM because of a comment one player made that his team was the "team to beat" one year, but this is a common cliche in sports not specifically relating to the 2007 Phillies.[6][7][8][9] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete along the same lines as Muboshgu. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 19 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 keep. Sandstein 20:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workflowy[edit]

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

Was speedied as spam and immediately recreated. Fails WP:NCORP. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because it contained download links in the 'External links' section. I notice that it was recreated without those links. So what is actual basis for deletion? Knobbly (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How is this spam? It is well referenced, and clearly demonstrates that WP:GNG is satisfied. St Anselm (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:StAnselm I will take your question as non-rhetorical. Having lots of citations does not mean "well referenced" nor does it mean "passes GNG". There are no end to low quality sites to link to.

It is less spammy without the links for downloading, yes. There are two very good refs (the Slate one from 2012 and the more recent one about the reboot from Geekwire. yes.

Lystra, Tony (May 5, 2018). "At top of WorkFlowy founder's to-do list: Keeping his app's cult-like following happy". Geek Wire. Retrieved May 18, 2018.
Manjoo, Farhad (August 2, 2012). "Everything Is a List". Slate. Retrieved April 25, 2016.

The rest are crappy -- here is what we have:

directories

"workflowy.com Site Infosite". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
SPS one at that "Crunchbase Profile". Retrieved April 25, 2016.

mundane review or listicle

Zukerman, Erez (September 30, 2013). "5 free Web tools to organize your thoughts". PC World. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
Fallows, James (January 6, 2016). "Tech Tips for the New Year: CloudMagic, Workflowy, 'Low Light' Filter on iPad". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 22, 2016.

crappy blog

Subramani, Viswanath (14 Jan 2018). "'WorkFlowy', Just another Productivity App?". Medium.com. Medium. Retrieved 7 June 2018.

2 solid refs is marginally keepable. Marginal. So worth a discussion. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No - 2 solid refs means WP:GNG is satisfied. Not worth the discussion. St Anselm (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People can differ on that. I acknowledge the trend is to keep; i'll withdraw this early if that continues. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Popular website according to its Alexa rank and the article has reliable sources. Knobbly (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - well sourced with RS. Passes GNG. Of course, it could use a bit of rewording, but is that ground for deletion? L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:58, 16 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 delete. Sandstein 20:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Princess[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film, coverage is not significant, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 14:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the film was previously deleted and salted after an AfD, with allegations of sockpuppetry. This version may not be the same but the question of notability remains. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 17 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 delete. Sandstein 20:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Alexander (football executive)[edit]

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

I am not sure whether this article pass WP:GNG or not, so I post here. Ortizesp said:Non-notable as per WP:Footy and WP:GNG, not associated with professional football by any means when he proded, but Smartyllama said:Sources clearly establish GNG when he deproded, thanks! Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the issue here is GNG, which he fails. None of the coverage is significant, it's all WP:ROUTINE regarding his father or appointments to positions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with the un-PROD. There are a couple sources about him being the youngest chief scout, but most of the sources aren't about him, and he doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 15:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - redirect to Keith Alexander (footballer), There is enough for a small section (paragraph) that could be merged to Keith Alexander's article and then redirect to that article as a possible search term. Govvy (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:26, 17 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Info-Blast[edit]

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

Non-notable event Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real assertion of why this is thought notable. No good independent references to demonstrate that this is notable. The "Find sources" links find very little that could be used to improve the situation and nothing that would get it over the line to sufficient notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a good cause, but no sign that it meets notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 19 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikelis Brizga[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable individual. PROD contested so AFD initiated. Quis separabit? 14:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references in the article are significant coverage in reliable newspaper sources to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The sources given in the article demonstrate notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, articles in major metropolitan (that are available nationwide) papers is enough for me. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 18 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Kanta Dash[edit]

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

I've no idea about how does he manage to pass either our general notability guideline or our notability guideline for academics.

Add to the above that we aren't a promotional medium.

This's a part of a likely UPE garden wherein the article-creator has created the articles of Kalinga Kusum, Rashmi Ranjan Parida and Odisha Diary all of which are connected to the same broader locus. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The profile is that of an academic and activist who has received appreciation from Monash University for being an Ambassador at the Parliament of World's Religions (Chicago) (https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/new-development-opportunity-for-monash-researcher) for his interfaith work in Australia. He has also been a New Leader at Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs (New York) for his youth engagement work. He has taken academia to people (like a true young public intellectual) through his engagements with print, online media and television commentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFEZKJorh6w). His literary activism through Kalinga Literary Festival has been to redefine literature (http://pragativadi.com/5th-kalinga-literary-festival-to-focus-on-building-a-just-society/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariayu (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is clear case of WP:GNG not pass and WP:BLP fail. I agree with Winged Blades of Godric. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here suggests that Dash is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The profile is that of a young academic and journalist who was a daily wage laborer (https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/getting-to-know-kamala-kanta-dash), from there he has gone to represent Australia at PWR (https://parliamentofreligions.org/users/kamala-dash) and Carnegie. Has been interviewed by Art of Living on Good Governance (https://www.artofliving.org/badantogast/SSU-Kamala-Kanta-Dash) and recently quoted in World Trade Center report on Social Entrepreneurship (http://wtcbhubaneswar.org/workshop-on-social-entrepreneurship/), promoting legal literacy (https://www.telegraphindia.com/1161101/jsp/odisha/story_116659.jsp) and naturopathy (http://www.natural-cure.org/news-and-updates/jagadguru-kripalu-yoga-and-naturopathy-hospital-conducts-naturopathy-workshop/). He is promoting literature in Odisha through Kalinga Literary Festival (http://kalingaliteraryfest.com/speakers/kamala-kanta-dash/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debadattaindia (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Non notable individual...Among the sources provided
- the monash.edu sources are interviews and profiles
- The youtube video does not qualify as a reliable source (basically a debate by a local news channel)
- The pragativadi.com source mentions her in passing
- The artofliving source is a profile/interview
- The wtcbhubaneswar.org source mentions her in passing among the invitees to their program
- The telgraph article also mentions her name in passing
- The natural-cure.org is a listing of all invitees to a workshop along with their educational qualificatons...It cannot be taken as a reliable source as it is not reliable
- The The Kalinga literary fest source is a profile

Thus there are no substantial reliable sources on which an article can be created....Delete — F R ⁺ 07:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

He was one of the recipients of Australian Government Fellowship to promote Australia-India ties (http://dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/foundations-councils-institutes/australia-india-council/Documents/australia_india_focus_2006_may_jun.pdf and https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/6-indians-to-get-australian-fellowships/story-ILFEcTW7ejSdf47u7fzGTJ.html)
As part of his community engagement work he met the then Hon'ble PM of Australia Ms. Julia Gillard who congratulated Dash for representing Australia at the Parliament of World's Religions (https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/ambassador-for-world-religious-peace)
He was invited to write for Australian National University academic blog South Asia Masala (http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/blogs/southasiamasala/contributors/kamala-kanta-dash/)
He has been cited to have extended community support to research work on doctoral students in Melbourne (http://isana.proceedings.com.au/docs/2010/paper_ong.pdf).
He was at the forefront in creating anti-racism awareness in Melbourne (http://www.india-voice.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=478&Itemid=42) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariayu (talk • contribs) 10:54, 22 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Noble (activist)[edit]

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

Basically a vanity autobiography. To give you some idea of the vanity, the subject also created Richard Noble Day, about a non-notable holiday about himself. His own article admits that no LGBT organization has given him an award. Calton | Talk 13:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More information on the NPOV noticeboard. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made up my mind about voting. While there may be notability if it is demonstrated that the subject was involved in the approval of laws, I think that WP:TNT may apply. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So far the majority of sources seem to have COI themselves. There are a lot (overciting?), but the fact that everything I have checked does not pass muster makes be vote delete.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick look over the sources and most do not even mention Richard Noble. Instead talking about various events independent of the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is much too long, violates WP:PEACOCK, and is full of irrelevant references and non-independent sources. (I'll see if I can lop it back.) Nonetheless, articles by independent journalists published in the Florida Times-Union, Mountain Democrat, Washington Blade, and maybe the Windy City Times squeak past GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. FourViolas (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources collected here make it pretty clear that at least the cross-country "Walk for Equality" is notable. It may be that the article should be recast as about the event per WP:BLP1E, as Noble's other activism doesn't seem to have attracted as much RS attention. FourViolas (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally people are not notable for one event.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to have been impossible to keep the wording neutral and it would be better if the whole thing were re-started from scratch by an uninvolved contributor if there is evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:TNT. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:07, 19 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 Deleted (G12) by Rhaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Joseph Aldred[edit]

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

All the sources are either by the subject or by closely affiliated sources. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources at all. Vexations (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added new search bar, name in lede is Joe Aldred.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has been previously created and deleted as Joesph Aldred (A3 and A12), Bishop Dr Joe Aldred(A10) and Joseph aldred(A7). I don't think anyone ever tried to create Joe Aldred. Vexations (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I saw it when I looked at the page creator's history. But there is coverage like this [10]. Enough comes up on those search bars to merit a close look, perhaps even the effort to create a decent page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is a fact that the black church is very inadequately covered on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bishops in the Pentecostal tradition are not assumed notable. All sourcing appears to be run of the mill and what’d you’d expect from someone who hosts a minor religious radio show. Not notable as a cleric or a broadcaster. Regardless, notability doesn’t even matter as this is borderline G11, and as such fails NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated for G12 speedy deletion, as the material is copyvio from http://www.drjoealdred.info/. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:10, 16 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARTAS System[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are mostly WP:PRIMARY. The one plausible-looking source is the LA Times article, but that's just a rehashed press release.

Particularly egregious is the Edison Award reference. Edison awards are pay-to-play, from the American Marketing Association, whose web page hawks the value of a nomination investment. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I just noticed that one of the primary authors Is an indef blocked sock. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep this was a solid nomination. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete obvious medical marketing. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Non notable and fully promotional. Natureium (talk) 15:57, 15 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 delete. Sandstein 20:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gruagach (Hellboy)[edit]

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

Nothing but a plot dump. Assuming the summary is up-to-date, the character has appeared in two stories. Both are summarized elsewhere and seem to minimize his importance even in-universe. A search for more sources turns up little but rumors of a future movie role. PROD removed without comment. No list of characters exists for Hellboy, so there is no viable merge target. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure fiction cruft, only of interest to fans and fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:37, 17 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 delete. No prejudice against a neutral article being created by an unaffiliated editor in the future, assuming notability is shown to be met. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ricard Zapata-Barrero (academic)[edit]

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

Spam article that needs to be nuked per WP:TNT. The three main editors are WP:SPAs: Cookeods (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Matahari1983 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and RicZapBar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The last is a name match for the subject, who has been blocked once for sockpuppetry with Isalabcor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sole edit, again, to this article) and self-promotion, and none of the others have any history other than promoting this subject in articles.

I userfied the article as an obvious autobiography, but it was moved back.

It is possible that a non-spam article could be written on this person, but this is not it, and we should not be encouraging blatant self-promotion and abuse of multiple accounts. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This sort of thing leaves a nasty taste. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TNT. Neutrality^talk 16:44, 16 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stefanovski[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer does not meet WP:NKICK PRehse (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Not notable. ShadessKB (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2018

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for kickboxers and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 18 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Kamvari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

We should be looking for independent significant coverage from secondary sources (which should obviously be reliable)

This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Possibly WP:TOOSOON Accesscrawl (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article.Accesscrawl (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more of an WP:ADVERT than an article. For example, the lovely picutres are of proposals or exhibition projects, not of actual buildings; it does not appear that any of the projects he designed have been built. He works in a firm. Perhaps it is simply WP:TOOSOON for this still young architect. A close look at sources on the page combine my searches to indicate that he fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 21 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 delete. Sandstein 20:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandana Singh (actress)[edit]

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

No indication or evidence that she meets notability requirements of WP:PEOPLE or WP:GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.Accesscrawl (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having prominent roles on multiple TV shows would appear to meet WP:ENT. However, all of the articles on Indian TV are of low quality, and I have no idea whether her roles are actually prominent or have simply been puffed up in the linked articles. I found no sources in Hindi (for वंदना सिंह अभिनेत्री). In Punjabi (for ਵੰਦਨਾ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਦਾਕਾਰਾ) I found a trivial mention and nothing more. I can't verify her roles; a Facebook page that appears to be about her hasn't been updated since 2012. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:01, 22 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 delete. Sandstein 20:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falooda (film)[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:NFILM. Supposedly released a month ago, but has made no noticeable impact since, with no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Highly promotional tone and original title of Falooda (2018 Film) (speedied db-g11 in April) suggests that the WP:SPA article creator is probably a sockpuppet of User:Swarndeep adamant, but rather than bother with an ongoing SPI, thought it best to simply take it to AFD. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very low-quality article that is likely undeclared paid editing. Refs are Pinterest, Youtube, etc. The synopsis looks like a copyvio of [11] as well (or they're both copied from press material for the film). power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:44, 22 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 keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional planets of the Solar System[edit]

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

Unnecessary, mostly unreferenced listcruft when there is already List of hypothetical Solar System objects for the ones that are scientifically/historically notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article gathers up references which otherwise would have had a lot of small articles and/or sections on articles about other things (e.g. hypothetical planets) with the result of general confusion and dissatisfaction. There is a big difference between a hypothetical planet (one which has been proposed to exist in the real world) and a fictional planet, even when that fictional planet has been inspired by the scientific (or pseudo-scientific) hypothesis. Having a separate list for these fictional items respects that difference.RandomCritic (talk)
Weak Keep With the name "Fictional", it's clear the reference is to literary works, not scientific hypotheticals. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Descriptive WP:STANDALONE list article which differs from "hypothetical" since these are all well sourced fictional planets.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RC, so long as that is the only reason for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RC. List of hypothetical Solar System objects is in no way a substitute for this article. Vadder (talk) 20:46, 20 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High elves[edit]

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

The concept of a high elf is a common trope, but not a notable one. Fails WP:GNG, and Tolkien's high elves have their own article anyway at Calaquendi. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, about half of these uses would make up an acceptable disam page, no? Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's anything notable enough to disambiguate between. The page uses the concept of "high elf" loosely to also refer to "light elves", or other elves that aren't described as "high elves". There is High Elves (Warhammer) but that seems equally as non notable as a standalone page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there's enough here for some form of disambiguation page. There are enough problems with the current content I wouldn't mind a delete+redirect to some page on "sentient species in fantasy games", though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the subpages of Lists of fictional humanoid species there are already plenty of elves in there. After the merge is complete a redirect to Elves in fiction would be appropriate. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the English language Wikipedia and so we should prefer the title high elf to the Quenya Calaquendi when talking of Tolkien's work, which is certainly notable. Andrew D. (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more in this world than Tolkien alone. The Banner talk 16:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT!! wash your mouth out. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:55, 20 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 delete. Sandstein 20:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Perez[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate significant biographical information in secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only notability claim was production work on a gold album which was not his, therefore I believe he does fail WP:MUSICBIO. Ifnord (talk) 13:08, 22 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clarke (advertising executive)[edit]

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

Lacks evidence of notability. All the references that I am able to access are based on press releases. Maproom (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not ALL but most. The Ad Week articles are legit, but may be behind pay walls. Without regard to the source quality, the article is more about various corporate transactions which I believe belong on the pages dedicated to those companies. Unless there is an article about Clarke himself doing anything notable, and I'm not aware of such information. NYFly (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the idea of creating a for-profit company that feeds kids in Africa is, IMO, notable even if it did not work. Perhaps there should be an article about the creation of and subsequent successes and failures of Pure Growth Partners. (Actually, a casual search comes up with very little 3rd party information about them). Or perhaps the existing Street King article should be improved and linked from the article for 50 Cent. I'll take the lead from more experienced editors on this. NYFly (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy promotional bio. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill businessman who fails WP:BIO. Note many of the sources only mention Clarke as an investor or company head, while the articles themselves focus on companies (much more coverage and text is devoted to Pure Growth Partners than to Clarke, for example). Thus, I would posit that the article subject does not have a claim to significance, as Wikipedia does not hold CEO's to be inherently notable and Clarke does not (per WP:NOTINHERITED) inherit notability from companies he serves as CEO of.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:36, 21 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nauman Ahmed[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:MUSICBIO and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources thus fails to meet basic GNG. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria. samee converse 10:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable yet, so delete for now. M A A Z T A L K 04:43, 17 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Leonard Johnson[edit]

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

I cannot find any verification that this person existed, much less meets the threshold of notability. The article seems compiled by a family member interested in genealogy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On the face, this fails WP:V/WP:NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Smells like a hoax - I don't think the OSS was involved in the Manhattan project (it was involved in sniffing out the German project - but not stateside AFAIK). The name seems odd, Little Boy was also not an implosion device, and in general imploding a plutonium core is not a matter of the steel case, but rather of the explosive lenses.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a bad article, but I am not sure that it is a hoax. It says far too much about his ancestry and college career and far too little about his adult career, particularly after the war. "Implosion" is clearly wrong, but there would have been a bomb casing, probably of steel for the 1st nukes. The Manhattan Project was highly covert. I suspect that the Project engineers ordered US Steel to provide a steel casing to direct the explosion inwards. He might have led the team that created this, probably without knowing what it was for. Googling produces some newspaper links that lead towards a paywall, but a couple of items look as if they may be verifiable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. According to Manhattan Project, over 130,000 people were involved. Being one of them does not automatically confer notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 20 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 redirect to 99 Ranch Market. Sandstein 20:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger H. Chen[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill businessman, no indications of notability, fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 99 Ranch Market. WP:GNG is not met. While founding 99 Ranch Market is a claim of significance (and a redirect target), there's no SNG for businesspeople that is met here. Regarding the references, the coverage in "Distinguished Asian American Business Leaders" is substantial, but it's the only independent source; parts of the text are a clear paraphrasing of [12]. No other references are in the article apart from the grocery chain's website, and none found; content like [13] is a trivial mention of him in the context of the store. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:38, 22 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Kinetic Treatment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot understand how this failed to be deleted the first time. FRINGE shilling with zero Pubmed hits. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Basie (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; nothing about this that meets WP:MEDRS, coverage like [14] isn't sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 19 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammalian aliens[edit]

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

Prod declined without reason or improvements. Prod reason was "Unsourced listcruft. Shouldn't this technically include all fictional extraterrestrial humans as well? Would become rather unwieldy..." Many similar lists of aliens have been deleted at AfD the last few weeks as well. Very vague inclusion criteria, an open invitation to WP:OR. Fram (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mammalian alien species (2nd nomination) for a comparable list and discussion. Fram (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, original research and listcruft. Ajf773 (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional extraterrestrials by form. wumbolo ^^^ 20:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unsourced fancruft, full of original research and plot summary, and effectively just another Animorphs fan page. These overly specific lists of different kinds of fictional aliens are correctly being considered unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Unclear rationale for deprodding. Reyk _YO! 15:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of info. Unsourced fancruft with vague inclusion criteria. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 21:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to List of fictional extraterrestrials. Only two entries here, both from the same series and that information is there already. Dream Focus 04:59, 20 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. A7 by Anthony Bradbury (after a previous A7 by Bbb23). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piyush Misra[edit]

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

Not meeting inclusion criteria of WP:NPOL. Reliability of local language media coverage is questionable, hence not sure whether meeting WP:GNG. Hitro talk 06:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I may not understand the non-English sources but the autobiographical nature of the article and the author's self-promotional amendments to Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party (1, 2) speak strongly to the author's awareness that nobody else is likely to find him notable. Cabayi (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, Notability not established. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG, clearly created for self promotion by user. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 16:20, 18 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 keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sohrab Rohani[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. I could not locate any reliable sources with significant coverage on this individual. Tinton5 (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's definitely highly cited enough to pass WP:PROF#C1, as GS shows an h-index of 43. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 by way of his citation record, and the society fellowship is enough to pass WP:PROF#C3. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets Prof with highly cited pages. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a society fellowship, a professional award (even if not a major one), and a fairly high h-index. Cumulatively enough here to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all the above, slam dunk, speedy close. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 20 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Warren (South Carolina politician)[edit]

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

He has not held a political position - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He got under 30% of the vote in the primary. In the unlikely chance he is elected governor, than he will be notable, not before. The article is both overly promotional and makes lots of unfounded claims to try to bolster its alleged notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to South Carolina gubernatorial election, 2018 Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I don't know how useful the redirect would be because of the disambiguator. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - At least until after the primary. Warren forced an inclumbent Republican governor into a runoff, which has never happened before in South Carolina. The most recent poll has him neck-and-neck with the incumbent governor. Considering that Warren gathered the support of Templeton and Bryant, there is a significant chance that McMaster could lose. Of course, not all of Templeton's and Bryant's supporters will vote for Warren, but it's a significant number. I recommend waiting until after the June 26 primary to make a deletion choice. I will vote to delete the page if Warren loses. Nicholemacgregor (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As JPL mentions, it is too soon to create an article on this individual. Wikipedia does not "wait" for possible notability; it must already be established otherwise we may as well throw away our notability guidelines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOL ("Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"), and there isn't the significant independent coverage to meet the GNG either. As stated above, notability is about the here and now, not what could be. If the subject is elected, then the article can be recreated (and this content could be undeleted if desired). ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 08:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Carolina gubernatorial election, 2018, I'll likely be neutral on re-creation if he does win the primary. Insufficient coverage outside of his primary campaign, and that coverage is largely local. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a good redirect term because of the disambiguator. Even if he wins the primary, just being a general election candidate for governor does not confer notability outside of the one event, the election. If he wins the general election, then he will gain notability as soon as the results are declared by various media outlets on election night, and the article should be undeleted at that time. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in election primaries, or for getting enough votes to push the incumbent into a runoff — and even if he wins the runoff in the end, he's still not guaranteed an article just for going into the general election as the "official" candidate either. The only sure shot over WP:NPOL is to win the general election and thereby hold the office — to get an article just for being a candidate, he would have to be shown to garner coverage that goes significantly beyond the routine local election coverage that's merely expected to exist for all candidates, but that's not what the sourcing here is showing. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat and becomes governor-elect, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 20 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. W. Patterson[edit]

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

small town mayor, fails WP:POLITICIAN Also, a low-quality article since it is mostly copied and pasted from [15] Rusf10 (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am inclined to keep since he appears with a full biography in Kentucky: A history of the state. --RAN (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)!vote by blocked user--Rusf10 (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC) unstruck; editor not blocked at the time of the comment power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC requires multiple sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User was not banned when he expressed his opinion. There are multiple sources in the article. gidonb (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's only notable because he was mayor of a small town, and there aren't enough sources to get him past WP:GNG otherwise. There are many poorly sourced mayor articles for Ashland, Kentucky. SportingFlyer talk 16:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is reasonable to hold anyone with a "biographical sketch" in the following book notable. William Henry Perrin, J. H. Battle, G. C. Kniffin (1888) "Kentucky: A History of the State, Embracing a Concise Account of the Origin and Development of the Virginia Colony ; Its Expansion Westward, and the Settlement of the Frontier Beyond the Alleghanies : the Erection of Kentucky as an Independent State, and Its Subsequent Development. Louisville & Chicago: F. A. Battey.

Interestingly, William Worth Patterson does not only have a decent entry in this "concise" Kentucky state history. He also has a "full page" portrait in the book. Really a bit smaller but given a full page. This image is included in WP as it is now in public domain. Patterson is also included in Ashland Centennial Committee (1954) A History of Ashland, Kentucky 1786-1954.

As a historic 19th century figure there are no WP:BLP concerns. Wikipedia has an unfortunate tendency towards WP:RECENTISM and falls short on historic entries such as the one on Patterson. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

again, WP:BASIC requires multiple sources. Also, by my estimation there are approximately 1200 entries in "Kentucky: A History of the State", are all 1200 to be considered notable?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the notability guideline regarding full page photos in books, myself. Anyways, being listed in that encyclopedia doesn't establish notability - if you read the descriptions of the people around him, they just list occupations, marriages, children, et cetera. The source is a directory listing and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Also fails to address the lack of WP:NPOL. Just because he's historic doesn't mean he's notable. SportingFlyer talk 01:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned there are multiple sources. Newspapers and history books. I mentioned two books above, i.e. good for basic. He is mentioned in many articles at newspapers.com. Finally, there are just over 500 biographical entries in this concise history of Kentucky so Rusf10's estimate is over the top. gidonb (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a rough estimate by looking at the index in the back of the book, maybe its only 1000, but I have no idea where you're getting 500 from. But even if it were 500, I ask you again, are all 500 entries notable? As for multiple sources, let's see them. As of right now we have this book, another local history book that really does very little to add to notability, and findagrave.com which should not even be used at all. This is reminiscent of a previous AfD about another article, where you claimed sources existed, but refused to tell us what they were.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1200 is a very bad estimate as is 1000. There is a list of the biographic entries at the end of the Kentucky history book. Just over 500, as I said. People are in these books for a reason. I have added yet another source to this article. In contrast to the impression you are trying to create, the references are solid. gidonb (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is a list at the end of the book, where do you think I came up with my estimate? But let's go with 500, have you read some of the other entries? There is no way everyone in this book is notable. Also, your new source appears to be a trivial mention in the local newspaper, the references are far from solid.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually looked at this list before making an estimate that does make things worse. So you are always going to argue no matter how often you are proven wrong. You can also withdraw or just read everyone's opinions. It's your choice. gidonb (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for your question: yes it's very reasonable that there would be 500 notable people in the entire state of Kentucky in over a century in arts, business, education, politics, medicine, journalism, law, etc. Such a time span allows for five and more generations while Kentucky's population was surging. Kentucky was relatively populated in the 19th century. It crossed the 1 million mark in the early 1850s! At that time it had about 30% the population of New York and 50% that of Ohio. In general, for previous centuries, we are underpopulated and this AfD does not help fix that problem. gidonb (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is abundantly sourced. As above, population requirements need to be adjusted for their significance at the time. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no population requirements that I'm aware of. This of been part of your argument at various AfDs, he/she represents x amount of people so they must be notable. When in fact there is no such guideline. The only guideline is WP:NPOL which says only "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are presumed notable. So we need multiple indepth sources that show some recognition outside of their town or county, population is not considered. Obviously a mayor of a large city will have no problem with significant press coverage. The mayor of New York City is a major local political figure with significant press coverage, the mayor of Ashland, Kentucky is not.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Abundantly sourced" points at the WP:GNG. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits." WP:NPOL makes the same claim in less detail. gidonb (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said anything of the sort before. Why don't you provide some kind of citation for your claim that "This of been part of your argument at various AfDs" or are you just intent on nominating articles? Bangabandhu (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough sources here to meet GNG, including the biography in the book. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ashland KY is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but the article is not sourced anywhere close to well enough to actually get him over the bar. No, it is not reasonable to extend an automatic notability freebie to every single person who happens to have a biographical sketch in one particular book — for starters, a biographical sketch is not necessarily substantial enough to pass GNG all by itself, but the other sources here aren't helping either: there's another even more local history book which is being cited only for the basic fact that he served as mayor but not for any substantive content about his mayoralty; his entry on Find-a-Grave (which is not a notability-assisting source); a blurb in a government report for which he's the author and not the subject; and a "hire me" classified ad that he placed himself — which means that the Kentucky book is still the only source here that's doing anything at all, but it isn't doing enough all by itself as the article's only useful source. And for another thing, what makes that book more special than every other local history book that isn't enough coverage to make a smalltown mayor notable all by itself? Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bearcat: an alleged "hire me" classified ad that Patterson would have placed himself is clearly a misunderstanding. After adding more newspaper items, the article is now sourced by many items and a decent biographical entry in one of Kentucky's statewide history books. gidonb (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the thing personally — and whatever it was, it very definitely wasn't reliable source coverage about him. So if I misunderstood anything, that something was not its failure to help passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering. Patterson had a lot of press coverage during his lifetime. The biographic entry I think is most important and the press coverage supportive. Passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article passes WP:CCPOL and is reliably sourced with multiple, in-depth sources. As a mayor and public figure, inclusion does not, in my opinion, violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE or other WP:NOT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NPOL is not exclusionary here, the way it is for contemporaneous political candidates; it's obviously not met as an inclusionary guideline either. Regarding WP:GNG, "Kentucky: A history of the state" is one secondary source, and "A History of Ashland, Kentucky, 1786 to 1954" may be another. Contemporaneous newspaper coverage is a primary source. It's not entirely clear whether the Ashland book (by the "Ashland Centennial Committee") is independent, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:20, 22 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 merge to Black metal. Sandstein 20:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red And Anarchist Black Metal[edit]

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

Genre is a neologism. Only one instance of the term can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be that common to hear about, but it is a true, sourced philosophy within black metal, such as national socialist black metal. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you need to do to prove that it is appropriate to have its own article, is to show that it meet the WP:GNG standard - that is, multiple third party sources that write in-depth articles about it. Professional music journalists and writers type stuff. WP:MUSIC/SOURCES has a good collection of usable and unusable example sources. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, NOISEY, PopMatters, and Pitchfork are referenced in the page. Not to mention, a lot of the information on the page is from it’s part in Red and Anarchist black metal.

Here’s the PopMatters source. https://www.popmatters.com/161118-if-it-aint-got-no-blastbeat-its-not-my-revolution-panopticon-2495831478.html The rest are in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixty Minute Limit (talk • contribs)

Please list off all of the sources that directly mention and discuss the genre here. You need multiple that discuss it in-depth. Two is the technical minimum, though it usually takes more like 4 or 5 to convince people that a stand-alone article should exist, otherwise people may !vote that it should be merged into a different genre article as a subsection instead. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOISEY source: "Canadian Crust Punks Storm of Sedition Go Off the Grid on Their Furious New 'Decivilize' LP | NOISEY". NOISEY. Retrieved 2016-05-10.

Pitchfork source:"Skagos: Anarchic Album Review | Pitchfork". pitchfork.com. Retrieved 2016-05-10.

PopMatters source:http://www.popmatters.com/column/161118-if-it-aint-got-no-blastbeat-its-not-my-revolution-panopticon/

A quick search shows that "Red And Anarchist Black Metal" has zero hits in the Noisey and Pitchfork articles. That's not a good sign. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still mentioned in those articles.

Fourth article, I don’t know if this is a reliable source, but it was just the source for one band. ^[1]

It's mentioned, but not by name? Please explain. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Berto. "Review Vidargangr - A World That has To Be Opposed". Lords of Metal. Retrieved 2016-05-10.

NOISEY calls them anarchist black metal. Pitchfork calls them anarchist black metal. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC) PopMatters doesn’t mention it by name but does make a reference on anarchy. It is safe to assume it talks about that when it also references know RABM bands. As well as for Lords of Metal, wich call it by the bane in the page, RABM.[reply]

Though we could re-name the article to just anarchist black metal.

It doesn't appear that you have the sources required to call it any of these things. There's a lot of original research going on here. That's probably why the nominator is trying to delete it... Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He dominated it because of neologism. And I wouldn’t mind this getting merged into another page, I just don’t want this information to go to waste. And also, a lot of the links provided are from this page.

Right, and if you read Wikipedia's stance on not making neologisms, you'll see that original research is one of the major areas why it's not okay. It may be best to merge it back to heavy metal genres and have it as a redirect there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I techenclly didn’t do original research, all I did was copy the paragraph that was in this page and did the same thing they were saying but in different ways. Oh, and if theres a merger, it’s better to put that paragraph on the black metal page, not in heavy metal genres. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to black metal. Per discussion points above. A single source references it, but not enough to meet the WP:GNG or warrant a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree to merge it fully and how it’s currently written into the black metal page below the NSBM paragraph. I also copied the article, it’s now completly in in my sandbox, I’ll need comfirmation for it to be copy-pasted to the article below the NSBM paragraph. If someone is critical of this, please vote. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 13:32, 18 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 keep. Adding content about the "old" Indian Ridge Museum, here or in a different article, can be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Indian Ridge Museum[edit]

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

Lack of notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. Fails WP:V as there is very little mention of this museum in mainstream sources. There do appear to be local news articles about the founder and the museum, but this does not qualify as significant coverage per WP:GNG. Furthermore, it appears the article has a great deal of material that is unsourced and likely written by an individual with a personal connection to the topic. LittleT889 (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article is a bit long and could be tagged to be edited down. As a museum and historic site (although not listed on the National Register of Historic Places) I think we want to have an article on this topic. It is a tourist attraction presumably, and will have coverage in guidebooks, newspapers, etc. --Doncram (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My problem right now is the lack of relevant references. This museum opened in 2000 yet none of the references are anywhere near that year so I don't see examples of the article subject itself being notable yet. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (tend towards keep) -- Publicly open museums are normally notable. A lack of citations is not a reason for deletion, unless the whole thing is original research, essentially a hoax. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is original research. First edit summary says "Created Page, more edits will come as I talk more with Curator". LittleT889 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The old "Indian Ridge Museum" received numerous write-ups in local papers, such as here. If the article were about that museum, I might !vote "keep" but I'm not sure. As it is, the "new" museum seems a bit promotional. Particularly, given [Vietzen's ongoing effort to re-collect the items in that museum http://www.chroniclet.com/Local-News/2017/03/29/Vietzen-home-now-history.html]. That said, I don't see promotional issues with this page to be strong enough to !vote delete. If kept, the article should be greatly paired down, as others have suggested, to remove OR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there can be one article on "Indian Ridge Museum", covering new and old ones, so the availability of sources on the old one (though not accessible by me) seems to make notability threshold met more clearly. I !voted "Keep" above. --Doncram (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: If you are interested in adding to the wikipedia page, I can make clippings of the newspaper articles for you to use - just let me know. Also, do consider checking out the resources at WP:TWL, which gives free access to a number of partner databases including newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Museums are generally notable. While this article is a mess right now, I think the sources are sufficient to meet GNG. No prejudice against moving to Indian Ridge Museum and merge the old and new. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:01, 20 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Sarto[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP; Village President does not automatically constitute political office inclusion at WP. Google search delivering YouTube videos does not make a notable BLP.

Delete village presidents are virtually never notable for being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references. There are a couple interesting articles on him, but they're not from reliable sources. SportingFlyer talk 05:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for being village presidents of small towns, but there's no evidence that he would clear WP:GNG on the sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 20 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 deleted out of process per G5. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepShe was on Amerixa’s Got TalentWc1987 (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Hadwin[edit]

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

Yes, amazing performance, but that doesn't make her (yet) notable enough for a standalone article. WP:ONEEVENT NE Ent 01:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, preposterous of you. Maestro05 (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with what the nominator says above. She may have got the golden buzzer but no notability is established outside of that. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Say Something (A Great Big World song) for time being. Passes GNG enough that calling BLP1E is pretty dicey IMO, but I do understand concerns that this may not turn otu to anything. If SUSTAINED is fulfilled within the next 6 mo, then I am fine with standalone article. She is 13 and has her life ahead of her to do more notable things. Tone of article could use improvement. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:06, 15 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 Delete.

Medvertex[edit]

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

The source are Medvertex itself, a google search for the subject's name, a database entry from the Arizona Corporation Commission, Medvertex itself and Medvertex itself again. Oh, I almost forgot, Wikipedia itself. None of these are the kind of sources that can sustain an article. Fails WP:NCORP. Vexations (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7, article on a corporation that fails to indicate notability. Nanophosis (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, CSD would be fine if the creator, whose name suggest that they may have a connection to the subject hadn't protested and claimed that all the content is factual. They're likely to protest that there is a credible indication of the importance or significance of the subject that would make A7 not applicable. I apologize for creating more unnecessary work for the community. Vexations (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, it's not your fault regardless. Anyway, Delete and SALT because the article has been recreated about 5 times now and this needs to stop. Nanophosis (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Does not meet WP:NCORP MB 05:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Enjoyed the ref tag to another wikipedia page, though, and for the mascot blurb. If this is its fifth recreation, happy to salt. SportingFlyer talk 06:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, and rather promotional too. The king of the sun (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the gng. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I rolled back the blanking of the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing better than mundane sources provided or found regarding this company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:22, 17 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh Middle School[edit]

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

This is an unnecessary disambiguation page. Neither school mentioned has an article itself and is therefore not-notable. TM 00:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD makes no sense to me. The article was created as a redirect due to a decision at AfD. Then an editor changed it to a disambiguation page because there is another school of the same name. I have no argument with either of these edits, both are appropriate. "Unnecessary" is not a reason for deletion. You could argue that anything is unnecessary, it depends on the purpose. Disambiguation pages do not have the same requirement of notability as articles. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a proper disambiguation page since both "red links" (the name of the schools) are backed up by the requisite blue links where you can find information on the school. (I couldn't find policy on disambiguation pages with only red links, if I'm wrong please ping me and let me know.) SportingFlyer talk 05:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: both schools merit a redirect to their school district or local area; as there are two, it needs to be a dab page. No problems of any kind, absolutely standard treatment. PamD 09:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This title would be a valid redirect to either blue link here if there were only one - as there are two, we need a disambiguation page. This helps readers - if a reader has typed in this title, we tell them where on Wikipedia they can find information on those topics. There would be no benefit at all to deletion, and it would hinder readers. Both entries meet the guidelines at MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that I was mistaken about policy on this. I am withdrawing my nomination.--TM 11:56, 15 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.