< 21 June	23 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sova[edit]

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

Delete Creation of page by blocked user Mikegodat, a sock of TroySchulz. It has been created by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban in accordance with speedy deletion criteria, G5. Also not enough sources are shown in this article. Evil Idiot (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reason A7 also applies, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:18, 24 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - is there a reason to send to AfD rather than tag for SD? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None that I can see. Boldly slapping a G5 on the article. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the tag to an A7 and G5 since both catagories apply, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. A7 is more of a judgement call than G5 (the creator either is or isn't evading a block/ban and when they've been blocked as sock of a blocked user, it's pretty darn obviously the latter), so I figured I'd just put the one I was completely certain of on there. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:18, 24 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rasgulla (film)[edit]

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

~~Per WP:NFF.~~ Striking since filming has begun. Jamez42 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Filming has begun per this source and has coverage from multiple other sources. BOVINEBOY2008 18:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Filming has begun...Additionally it has been covered by reliable sources — F R ⁺ 11:18, 25 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 19:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoist with his own petard[edit]

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

Dictionary definition leavened with some duplicate stuff taken from Petard. E Eng 22:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is more than simply a "dictionary definition", it provides the history and etymology of the term in an encyclopedic fashion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't give history and etymology, it gives etymology and a usage example – which is what dictionaries do – plus a description of what a petard is, which is what the article Petard is for. E Eng 04:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare isn't historical? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If only there were some phrase to describe this exchange... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this seems like a situation where a soft-redirect to Wiktionary would be appropriate. I don't see anything more than the dictdef here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is an entry for this in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (Fifth Edition, Cassell, February 1959, pp 492, 493 & 701) that gives examples of inventors who have been "hoist with their own petard". That is an encyclopedic list. I suspect you could find examples of people literally suffering this particular fate, because use of the petard was dangerous. This article is already more than a definition (eg literary criticism of Shakespeare's puns), and we can expand it further. In any event, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R, because we could redirect and merge to the article on petard. James500 (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with merge/redirect to Petard. E Eng 06:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a dictionary entry or suitable pointer to Wiktionary, but rather a history and discussion of an extremely well-known phrase from English literature, with citations. --MCB (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merge to Petard seems like a bad choice. That article is about munitions; this one is about an idiom. Combining them because the contain they same word is textbook WP:NOTDICT. I think an argument can be made to keep per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, ~~but given this article's current state (it cites only dictionaries, mainly definitions of its component words) I wouldn't object strongly to a soft redirect, as power~enwiki suggests.~~ Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Xover (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That is quite the WP:HEY-style edit, and it's been expanded enough for DYK... Chris857 (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been significantly improved since it was nominated. /Julle (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally I would have agreed with the nominator. However, Hamlet is a very long play and there is room for articles on specific aspects of that play. Someone has made a lot of effort to bring this article up to standard, and it is now fit for inclusion. Deb (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 50 points to Xover for a massive rewrite. The topic is notable (although admittedly hard to find sources for, given its usage) and that should be clear as day now. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BEFORE. Also known as hoist on his own petard, this has been for centuries a notable phrase or idiom. Unline words, phrases often deserve encyclopedia articles. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 29 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Salgueiro[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of an actress, "known" primarily for short films and supporting or bit part roles rather than major ones. As always, actors and actresses do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because the article lists roles -- the inclusion test is not the having of roles, but the garnering of enough reliable source coverage about them in media to clear WP:GNG for the having of roles. But the only references present here are a photograph of her on a PR website and an IMDb-like database, which are not reliable or notability-conferring sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of references on Google News https://www.google.com/search?q=Jess+Salgueiro&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBCA709CA709&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEu_qn1ujbAhVp3IMKHXjTDrk4ChD8BQgMKAM&biw=1920&bih=946 like this one: https://deadline.com/2016/12/power-cast-mike-dopud-jess-salgueiro-the-strain-1201867559/ She has or had recurring roles in FX’s The Strain, SyFy’s Channel Zero and CBS’ Ransom Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An actress's notability is not demonstrated by routine casting announcements, or by the namechecking inclusion of her name in "the cast also includes so-and-so and such-and-such" asides at the bottom of articles about the show's production. An actress's notability is demonstrated by sources which single her out for more than trivial attention, such as substantive critical analysis about her performances, entertainment news profiles that are substantively about her, and on and so forth. That Google search offers no indication of the kind of sources that are required — it's the volume of media coverage about her (which is not the same thing as media coverage of other things which mentions her) that marks the difference between a notable actress and a non-notable one, not merely the question of whether her role in any given show was one-off or recurring. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain and per sources on Google News - Not all are perfect but the majority on the first five pages are, Meets NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What sources in that search are adequate to assist passage of GNG? Every single one of them is a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article about something else, and exactly zero of them are about her for the purposes of fulfilling what GNG requires. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, her resume is a compendium of small parts and short films, and there is a lack of coverage as noted in the nomination. Note: she's a working actress, and should she eventually land a significant/starring role and receive some direct coverage in reliable sources, then an article could be created at that time. PK T(alk) 13:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on the number of notable TV shows she apears in, it seems like she should maybe be notable, but looking for sources I just couldn't find anything. The best is: [1] but even that has literally no information about the actress herself, only the role. Probably needs a better publicist, but at the moment it is WP:TOOSOON per our guidelines. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:19, 30 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 19:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Weds Heer[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF. Jamez42 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NFF doesn't apply here, since the listed air date is June 2018. I did a little further research on Google and according to the postings I found, it was to air on Eid ul Fitr, or June 14th. That means it aired a few days ago. As for reliable sourcing, if it has aired, we can judge the article on its merits after sources and reviews start to trickle in. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a TV series not a film and has claims to pass WP:TVSERIES as nationally broadcast so it should receive reviews, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - as above, not sure why the film notability guideline is cited, WP:TVSERIES is what covers this. Since its scheduled for airing on a national network, it meets the usual minimum threshold. -- Netoholic @ 11:40, 23 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 Draftify. Moving to draft space per rough consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reckoning (TV series)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF. Jamez42 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ordered, but literally no other details besides where it's airing and when filming starts. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTIFY - not sure why the film notability guideline is cited, WP:TVSERIES is what covers this. Its typically better to just DRAFT ordered series until they've been officially picked up and scheduled. -- Netoholic @ 11:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Netoholic -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Not currently notable or sourcable, I don't see any problem with dropping it in draft for the time being though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:22, 30 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 Draftify. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Trial Of Christine Keeler[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF. Jamez42 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFTIFY - not sure why the film notability guideline is cited, WP:TVSERIES is what covers this. Its typically better to just DRAFT ordered series until they've been officially picked up and scheduled. -- Netoholic @ 11:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTIFY it is possible for a TV show to be notable before it airs, but I see is no indication that this one is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 29 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. The nom has essentially withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flack (TV series)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF. Jamez42 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NFF does not apply as there are sources that indicate it is shooting or had finished shooting - [2][3]. Hzh (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- True, second source indicates that the shooting finished. Article needs to be updated and expanded in that case. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:22, 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 moved to draft Now at Draft:Moonbase 8. ansh 666 23:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbase 8[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF. Jamez42 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Moonbase 8 is going to be a TV series and not a film, would this pass WP:NFF? There are also sources saying that the show is currently in production. Vistadan 22:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Vistadan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

@Vistadan: If the show is currently in production, I'd vote to keep the article, although I'd also like further sources are provided in the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vote to keep the article too. I have added further sources and added "External links". Vistadan 22:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Vistadan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

I'm still a little concerned about coverage, but I'd like to know other editors opinions. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFTIFY - not sure why the film notability guideline is cited, WP:TVSERIES is what covers this. Its typically better to just DRAFT ordered series until they've been officially picked up by a network and scheduled. -- Netoholic @ 11:42, 23 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shamshera[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF Jamez42 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, filming has not yet begun. BOVINEBOY2008 01:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the least filming needs to have started so unfortunately its WP:TOOSOON Atlantic306 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid deletion promotions and interviews discussing the film have already commenced so it is a buildable wiki page that can be developed and improved over time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusratrah98 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying seems to be the best course in that case. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify, per NFF. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding pro deletion arguments. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santhoshathil Kalavaram[edit]

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

~~Per WP:NFF~~ Jamez42 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)--Jamez42 (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how so? It was due to be released in May, so principal photography has certainly begun. this source, which is in the article, says the film has already been shot. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the second source that states that the film was already shot. However, I'll note that looking at the movie's official Twitter account it seems the movie hasn't been released yet. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doesn't seem to be failing any inclusion criteria. Dial911 (talk) 21:49, 30 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. I will let a move discussion resolve any question of renaming. However there is a clear consensus against deleting. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Boot[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Small local business. Routine local coverage only. MB 20:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historic landmark. Andrew D. (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't be that historic if virtually no coverage exists outside of niche and review sites. More results found were about the football Golden Boot award. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Association football goes back to 1863. The establishment in question goes back to 1790 and so is more historic. Andrew D. (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dude, that's not the point. The award proved far more notable than the shoe store in searching for viable sources under the exact words "Golden Boot". Adding related keywords like "Maidstone" still produced nothing of interest. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does a comparison with the football award prove? That is huge - the UK Premier League version alone gets over 700 views a day, never mind the World Cup one. Totally irrelevant argument. Don't confuse whether an article is primary with whether it should be deleted. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historic means important, significant, or consequential. There is no doubt that this business is old, but that alone does not make it WP:NOTABLE. MB 22:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Golden Boot (shop). A retail business that can be traced back to 1790 is unusual and hence notable. The football award is far more notable and should be allowed to be the primary use, with the shop being linked via a capnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your definition of notable but it is not WP's. Have you found any coverage in RS? MB 17:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering as well. Because it is "old = notable". I don't agree. Anatoliatheo (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Golden Boot (shop) per Peterkingiron. There is a lot of press coverage of oldest shops, many much less old than this. If it ever closes down you can bet there will be plenty of stories then. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Golden Boot (shop) per Peterkingiron. I find it hard to believe that a shop that has existed for that long doesn't have some additional offline sourcing somewhere, even if you can't find it in a google search. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: There is a mountain of results in British newspapers from Maidstone, Kent to sift through [4]. There are a ton on newspaper advertisements, but for example halfway down this search page there appears to be an example of news coverage that starts with "Messrs Randall aad Co., of the “Golden Root,” Maidstone, gave exhibition of boot making, •bowing how the work is done their factory the bottom of Gabnel’a-bill. The firm manufacture large quantity of boots, giving employment to several bauds. Besides ..." I can't read the rest as it is paywalled, and it is a bit broken due to automated text reading, but that is the sort of offline coverage that I expect there is plenty of if you want to dig through the search results. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere, your search seems to be artificially large because it was matching on any of the words in the search string. I tried with "Golden Boot" (in quotations) in Maidstone, Kent and only had about a dozen hits. They contained a few cases of shoplifting at the store, the death of an owner Mr. Randall, and the boot making exhibition that you mentioned above which seems to me to be the most significant article. But overall, this strikes me as minor routine local coverage. I don't see enough here to get to GNG. MB 02:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point wasn't that all the sources where there, it was that sources exist for old topics in places you wouldn't generally find them. That newspaper archive has some sources, but it won't have nearly close to all of the published accounts of the store. Old places like this are nearly always notable, it just isn't often easy to find the sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying it may be notable. Fine, but without finding sources that is just a presumption. It also may be there is nothing but the kind of routine minor local coverage like shoplifting. It seems that if just being "old" was really that significant, then there would be more coverage from the past 100 years and we wouldn't have to be guessing about how much coverage there may have been in the 19th century. MB 04:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parasite-encoded cytokine macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF)[edit]

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

This is page is essentially WP:SYN and promoting the work of one lab -- a mini-review assembling primary sources, created by someone who has been going around WP WP:REFSPAMming citations into our project. With regard to this page, As you can see in its history, I went through this bit by bit and removed primary sourced content and straight up WP:OR, and was left only with sourced content about Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (the only secondary source, is about the human ortholog). I went into pubmed and found one decent review on this set of related proteins, added content based on that secondary source at the main Macrophage migration inhibitory factor page, and redirected this there. The creator reverted to their version. So here we are. There are insufficient secondary sources with which to build an article on this topic at this time. We can build content on this at the main page until there is enough content there and then do a WP:SPLIT at that time. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is WP:SYNTH and barely more than WP:OR or even WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 29 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#Jamie Scott. Sandstein 21:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Scott (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) 16:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Shaneymike (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 16:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rewrite the page. The page could be re-written to be a substantive article, making sure it follows MOS:TV, if not delete.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent coverage to establish notability. Fictional characters have to be established as notable independently of their subject. If the character cannot be established as notable except as part of One Tree Hill and covered independently and not just as part of the subject, it's not notable enough for its own article. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 23 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Tate[edit]

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

A suburban mayor who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. He's served as mayor for a long time - there's a freeway frontage road named after him, so there are a lot of hits, but there's not enough sources to flesh out the article. Many sources are run-of-the-mill or trivial, including his brief mention in the New York Times for term limits. In one source I found about the election, fewer than 2,000 people vote for this particular mayorship, which doesn't strike me as helping his notability cause at all: [5] SportingFlyer talk 07:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although Tate does not meet wp:NPOL because he has not held statewide office or higher, I think he may pass the wp:gng as I was able to find some substantial coverage in independent reliable sources - [6] [7] [8]. He also was mentioned in this NY Times piece about term limits in Texas, which while not "substantial" per se is probably more than just "brief". I also think that the fact that a major thoroughfare in Grapevine is named after him adds a little bit to his notability. Zingarese (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He may be notable for serving a long time. Agree there's more there than your average small town mayor. Still, the article will need WP:TNT even if it's kept, and more sources added. SportingFlyer talk 23:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should keep the article because it talk about the Mayor of grapevine who has been the mayor for over 40 years and has lived in grapevine all his life. And his contributions to the city of grapevine and to the state should not be over looked. Not also that he is talked about in the newspaper more than the mayors of Southlake, Colleyville combined.

here is one example of many articles that describe and talk about whillam D Tate achievements. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170407005666/en/Texas-Gov.-Abbott-Welcomes-Kubota-Grapevine-Celebrates

Colored

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 14 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. Grapevine TX is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are other sources found in Google News that briefly cite the subject of the article. However, it's not indicative of notability based on the rules on Wiki. ABY 124431132 (talk) 00:57, 23 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. Consensus is that the topic is notable, and that although the article article needs cleanup, deletion is not the best way to accomplish this. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ryan (recovery advocate)[edit]

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

Unreliable sources, at least two main editors strongly connected, one of them already blocked. For me subject looks totally unnotable. Please let's start a discussion Petr Metr (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't checked all the sources (some of which are blocked for me in Europe and aren't always easy to get hold of - notably, major newspapers like Chicago Tribune), but two things stood out. The National Safety Council citation looks sound; and the fact that in July 2017 A&E Networks broadcast an hour-long special about him, see e.g. 1 and 2. Ref [2] (which is Chicago Tribune) also records other news coverage, including in Newsweek.

(I was rather surprised. With the article creator blocked for socking, I was fully expecting to be investigating a WP:REFBOMBing. But even the minor citations seem to be relevant minor citations, with something more than passing mentions.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:27, 6 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles created through undisclosed payment are not always inherently unencyclopedic, and this appears to be one such case. Quite a lot of in-depth coverage on the subject, including both biographical and recent event related coverage. As for notability, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, CBS Chicago and Northwest Herald have written articles about the subject, just to name a few. Meets WP:NBIO. Nanophosis (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete So he put out a book, did a book tour, and got a lot of press during that. With Bischoff Hervey, a brand-building TV production company (source), he has a special on cable TV and got some press promoting that. What is not that kind of thing, are bad sources like the "drug rehab" blog thing. This overly elaborate ... thing is just PR slag. We could maybe have an article on this person, but this is nothing like it. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the greatest article in the world, but the various national-level media sources aren't "unreliable". Basie (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No but they are obvious PR machination and not really independent -- see footnote 3 on Wikipedia:Notability#Notes by the way. I don't much like WP being manipulated. Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, to an extent I sympathise with that point of view because when you review a blunt Google news search you get a lot of the same soundbites. Still, I suppose that's not surprising... the A&E special probably got decent ratings, there's the book, and he's scattered across YouTube. Spikes in popularity tend to lead to a lot of people writing about basically the same thing for awhile. But I just don't think I can reasonably look at the wide variety of different sources out there and say, "All of these are part of the PR machine." Then again I don't live in the US, so maybe I haven't experienced the PR machine at close enough range... Basie (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that is how a PR machine works. You go from town to town and your advance team lets the local press at each town or city know you are coming, and every place gets the same human interest story. Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There really ought to be a guideline WP:IGNORETHECRUD. A multiplicity of cruddy references does not make a topic non-notable. Notability is decided by the best references, irrespective of the cruddy ones. Narky Blert (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, TNT exists for very good reason. We do not honor our mission or our readers by keeping crud. We do not ignore crud, and your protestations would be more... i don't know, persuasive, if you actually fixed the article and showed it is possible to have a well-sourced, solid piece on this person. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject has reliable primary & secondary resources.NANExcella (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for now, per Jytdog. Perhaps the article can be published again by an uninvolved editor using less promo. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has issues, but the subject has enough coverage to be notable. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it still stinks of the promotional paid editing, but being a noted guest at a State of the Union speech and the subject of an hour-long show on A&E (TV channel) should be enough to meet GNG, even with the concerns about placed PR pieces. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old man's car[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedic subject. 1292simon (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Old age and driving. Vorbee (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Old age and driving per comment above. 344917661X (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit with amendments needed. I considered also aligning with the above merge votes, however the Old age and driving article is actually distinctly different in what it discusses (that being more to do with cognition and driving ability). The article in this AfD is focussed more on ownership and expands a little into comparisons between car preference in the older vs younger generation. I'd be looking more to expand this article to be broader in terms of making that comparison and distinction between older and young preferences, perhaps with a change of name too. I don't feel a merge in this instance would be appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bungle - Merging the article wouldn't really make sense as such .... It's hard to explain but yeah IMHO it just wouldn't make sense, –Davey2010^Talk 14:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why this is supposed to be not an encyclopedic subject. It's an industry term for a class of cars, and completely different from the suggested merge target of Old age and driving. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Power~enwiki. Could you provide some references showing that it's a common industry term please? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is a "industry term". Of course, some cars do attract more older buyers. But I don't see the makings of an encyclopedic article here. Many of the refs are offline, but the first NYT article doesn't use the term and makes only one reference to age: "... it can't be denied that [Cadillac] Fleetwoods have a diminishing audience, with the median age of buyers at 67". This seems more of [{WP:SYNTH]] than summarizing what reliable sources have written about the topic. The iMedia ref does say "But while you can sell a young person's car to an older person, you can't sell an old person's car to a younger person." Again, a broad general statement without much "meat". That could be said about many things besides cars. Agree with above comments that merging to Old age and driving is not appropriate. MB 05:08, 22 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)} 19:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable idiom rather than merely as an "industry term", which it isn't anyway. Plenty of good sources show it's notable. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 29 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 Leslie Crowther. Sandstein 21:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tallulah Supercat[edit]

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

Article covering two different 1970s kids' story albums from UK. Perhaps beloved by a small cult of fans but I can find no reliable media coverage in which these records were discussed with any detail. Even a Google Books search only revealed a couple of bare listings ([9], [10]) of the records' existence. ~~Also, the Gramophone Magazine link in the article is either bogus or defunct.~~ They were apparently narrated by a notable person, but the albums themselves are not notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of coverage. Gogole search basically shows Wikipedia mirror sites and CD shops. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 01:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doomsdayer520, the Gramophone review isn't bogus... it's the second link you provide above - that's the picture of the cover of the December 1974 edition, and the excerpt from the magazine that reviews the albums. But really, this is so niche and not a pair of children's albums that have ever had any lasting impact (unlike, say, Dougal and the Blue Cat). I grew up in the UK in the 1970s, but I've never heard of Tallulah Supercat. Richard3120 (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it was possibly a bogus attempt to spruce up the article with an online reference, but you are correct. That comment has been stricken from the nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you now – thanks for clearing up my confusion. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Might want to relist because sometimes it is spelled "Tallulah Super Cat" and there is also the other title tied to this article. Found another source using the alternate.[11] StrayBolt (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for analysis of alternate spelling and additional source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to the relisting suggestion from StrayBolt above) -- No compelling evidence given to re-list. The Cash Box page might be a good find but it's too pixelated when magnified to see any information about these particular records. They are not listed in the easier-to-see section headers, so even if they are mentioned it is very brief, thus confirming the reason for the nomination. Also, the fact that there are two albums in the article was mentioned in the nomination. Searches for the first named album under either spelling, or for the second album ("Tallulah and the Cat Burglars"), lead to the same results: bare listings of their existence but no in-depth coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another week is not a big issue, are you in a rush? The article is readable in full screen mode or via many of the download options. It is only a paragraph, with this sentence (or more, OCR typo) being half of it:

In the past they have dealt in the classics for all age groups from Winnie the Pooh to Colditz" but now they have gone into the world of music and formed a partnership with songwriters/producers Ken Howard and Alan Blaikley Tallulah the Super Cat" was the first release and such has been the success that a followup double album Tallulah and the Cat Burglars" was issued Two tracks have been issued as singles with two more to follow in the near future.[12]

It probably will be deleted in the end. I don't have access to UK newspaper archives which are likely to have references. StrayBolt (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was not in a rush, and instead did something that you should have done the first time. You said that the nomination "might" be eligible for re-listing because you found another source, but at the time you did not discuss that source in any fashion. Then the admin relisted it with the request that your new source be analyzed, which I did. Even with your magnified text I still favor the WP:EXIST standard, but on that point I will admit that we may disagree. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leslie Crowther. To be honest, I suspect that enough sources do exist to justify notability here. But 1970s British newspapers and periodicals with a focus on children's media are not exactly imminently searchable online. Regardless, however, the topic is already addressed at Crowther's article (not that it doesn't need some work, too), and, because these are real, are plausible search terms. Additionally, that respects WP:PRESERVE in case adequate sources are evident in future. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I'm the only Brit who has commented so far on this AfD, and in 1974 I would have been just the age for the target audience for these records. But I've never heard of them, and forgive the WP:IKNOWIT argument here, but there really aren't thousands of dewy-eyed 40- and 50-somethings up and down the UK reminiscing nostalgically about Tallulah – I suspect you'll struggle to find anyone in Britain who has heard of or remembers these albums. I'm not denying there were some big hitters involved here – within the music industry Ken Howard and Alan Blaikley were well-respected composers of pop songs (including no. 1 singles) and TV theme tunes, and Leslie Crowther was a very familiar face on TV for several decades as a family entertainer. But I don't know what evidence there is of notability, or the proof that "such has been the success" of the albums – that just sounds like record company hype to me. They didn't chart, although to be fair, they may not have been eligible because in 1974 budget albums were excluded from the main chart. But the two singles didn't chart, and there's no evidence of a BPI certification either. I don't share StrayBolt and Squeamish Ossifrage's confidence that these records would have got any attention in national newspapers (although if anyone has access through Highbeam or similar I'm happy to be proved wrong), and I don't believe there were any magazines around at the time regarding children's media – it would have just been reported in Music Week in a very similar style to the Cash Box article above. Richard3120 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're right. Not only has it no citations in the Times Digital Archive or the Guardian & Observer Digital Archive, which would have been less likely to cover these albums anyway, there are also no mentions in UK Press Online or the British Newspaper Archive, both of which contain papers (Daily Mirror, Daily Express, The Stage) which are more likely to have covered such things. I don't think any UK newspapers of this vintage are on Highbeam, btw. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to have a look, RobinCarmody – I honestly believe the most likely place to find mention of these albums is in copies of Music Week from 1974, but unless anyone is heading to the British Library very soon, I don't think we'll be able to check. Richard3120 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wild ~~goose~~ cat chase, but I thought there would be more. Thanks to all. There is more content in the references but it doesn't seem worthwhile adding since 2, or even 3 with Music Week, trade articles wouldn't be enough. Maybe all it would be a "DYK Leslie Crowther sang on a children's album?" or "DYK the hit duo songwriters of Howard and Blaikley wrote for a children's musical storybook?" Maybe that could be added to the two composers. StrayBolt (talk) 17:50, 29 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 Gloria Holden#Personal life. Sandstein 21:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Corbett[edit]

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

Delete or merge with Gloria Holden: insufficiently notable actor; does not derive notability as son of actress Gloria Holden per se but merger after manually moving salient info to target article should be appropriate Quis separabit? 18:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or add a section in Gloria Holden: No significant sources indicating notability outside of the IMDb page and a few brief mentions in books from that time period. ABY 124431132 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gloria Holden#Personal life. I just added him there - now we just need to add a line with his tv/film appearances, should that be the way consensus goes. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:49, 30 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 Funeral and burial of Abraham Lincoln. Merge from history can be considered editorially. Sandstein 21:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fleetwood Lindley[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO1E. "The last surviving person to have looked upon the face of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln before his final burial at his tomb in Oak Ridge Cemetery" is hardly even a "minor participant" in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He wasn't alive at the time Lincoln was shot. Coverage exists to confirm his existence, but not to establish WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Funeral and burial of Abraham Lincoln. E Eng 00:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request: I'm assuming this will become a merge or redirect, but if it's simple deleted, Mr. Admin please email me the source text. E Eng 15:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect though I wouldn't oppose a straight delete; this is trivia that is barely relevant to Funeral and burial of Abraham Lincoln. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how is this even being considered, IMHO. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Funeral and burial of Abraham Lincoln. Interesting trivia, but certainly not worthy of a standalone article. Not something that people would be looking for aside from in the burial article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:29, 30 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 21:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Echobox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Echobox

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

Delete Non-notable company. Self promoting article - subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Misterpottery (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These two references establish notability: http://mediashift.org/2017/10/intelligent-analytics-coming-publishing/ and https://www.bbc.com/news/business-36837824 are enough to establish notability. They discuss the company in reasonable depth in the context of larger issues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This reference from MediaShift is also good. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sourcing does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; it's in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Mediashift is closer to what's needed, but it's still WP:TOOSOON. The company has not achieved anything significant just yet. Just a promotional directory listing at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing fails WP:NCORP, which sets a significantly higher standard for sourcing than the GNG because of the promotionalism rampant in this area. The BBC source is okay, and while the Mediashift one is moving in the right direction, on the whole, I don't think weighing all the factors this gets to what NCORP is asking us to do: ignore material that isn't substantial or is designed to promote. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 30 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agency[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable digital marketing company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 16:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems kinda soapy to me, and all the sources are just links to their own web pages or accomplishments they've made. All sources (when searched) just are self-promotion. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 16:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another promotional article about a non-notable company in which its creator thinks listing a bunch of names and meaningless awards will somehow justify its existence. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The content describes a firm going about its business, supported by routine partnerships and announcement references which are insufficient for WP:NCORP. Nor are the listed industry awards inherently notable. The relation between Fuse 8 and Delete described in the history section doesn't seem to accord with this 2010 announcement coverage but, again, that coverage is insufficient for notability here, and my searches are not finding WP:CORPDEPTH coverage, either for Delete Agency or Fuse 8. AllyD (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The fact that this agency has won some type of awards might make it notable, depending on the award notability and significance overall. If it can be shown this company is the recipient of a major business award, then keep. If not- delete. -O.R.^Comms 03:42, 23 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 List of One Tree Hill characters. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Davis[edit]

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

This article ought to be redirected to List of One Tree Hill characters for the following reasons:
1. Lack of secondary sources.
2. It is pretty much ALL plot summary whereas the Lucas Scott article has a reception section.
3. It looks like Fancruft.
4. This subject already has a more appropriate article here: onetreehill.wikia.com/wiki/Brooke_Daviis Shaneymike (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shaneymike (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictonal elements-related deletion discussions.Shaneymike (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters. Completely overloaded with fancruft and other in-universe filler material that anyone unfamiliar with the series could give two figs about. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of One Tree Hill characters. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 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. Enigma^msg 19:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Farragut Academy Admirals men's basketball team[edit]

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

This article is only of interest because it was pro star Kevin Garnett’s senior year in high school. It is otherwise non-notable. This season is already covered at Kevin Garnett#Early life and high school career. A dedicated article expanded would only be clutter with unneeded game-by-game minutiae (WP:NOTDIARY). This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002–03 St. Vincent-St. Mary Fighting Irish men's basketball team, related to another high school season of pro star LeBron James that was also created by the same user. In spite of that AfD, they went and created this Garnett article anyways. —Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there are really no claims to notability here as all the coverage is about Kevin Garnett. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an article supposedly being about the team itself, 99% of it focuses on Kevin Garnett. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no independent notability. Kablammo (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DaHuzyBru (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ridiculous. Rikster2 (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 29 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 21:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1995–96 Lower Merion Aces men's basketball team[edit]

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

This article is only of interest because it was pro star Kobe Bryant’s senior year in high school. It is otherwise non-notable. This season is already covered at Kobe Bryant#High school. A dedicated article expanded would only be clutter with unneeded game-by-game minutiae (WP:NOTDIARY). This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002–03 St. Vincent-St. Mary Fighting Irish men's basketball team, related to another high school season of pro star LeBron James that was also created by the same user. In spite of that AfD, they went and created this Bryant article anyways. —Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lower Merion High School since there is some info that can be added to the high school article. Not a fan of these high school season articles though -- maybe the best high school PROGRAMS can get articles, but even then it's a stretch. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DaHuzyBru (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kobe Bryant (or LeBron James or whomever) being on a team doesn’t make the team season notable. Creating articles for HS teams would be a really awful precedent Rikster2 (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per nom. I could be convinced to make an exception to a generally non-notable team's single season article if it had two hall of fame players on it at one time, but for just one player, the notability is solely because of him, so a merge works. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Timtempleton and Editorofthewiki: It's great that participants are looking to WP:PRESERVE. In this case, however, Lower Merion High School#Varsity basketball already mentions their championship season in 1996 and Bryant being on their team. There's really nothing left to merge, and this 1995–96 article is poorly sourced also. Frankly, there's better sourced material to borrow at Kobe Bryant#High school. Note also that other similar AfDs from that author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002–03 St. Vincent-St. Mary Fighting Irish men's basketball team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Farragut Academy Admirals men's basketball team ended in "delete" with no merging.—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 30 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Platinia Hotel[edit]

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

It's... a hotel. And it opened like two months ago. No discernible historical, architectural or corporate notability. Yes, the local press gave a certain degree of coverage to the opening — but they also notice when supermarkets, swimming pools or hair salons open.

The only smidgen of notability might come from the award. However, I'm skeptical this is real. First, because it's sourced to "EvoNews", a dubious PR site; and second, because on the actual Romanian Hotel Awards site, there's no mention of Platinia. I mean, they allegedly were named most modern hotel in 2017 but only opened in 2018, so...

Anyway, I'm sure it's a very nice hotel and all, but there really is no indication that an encyclopedia should have an article about it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a random hotel, fails WP:GNG. All of the existing references is just a blatant advertising for this hotel and shouldn't be considered as useful.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I removed the laughable "notable guests" section since the one person mentioned therein doesn't even have their own article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five-star hotels, by their nature, attract media attention and get written about. This hotel has gotten coverage from national media outlets in Romania, including this one from well before it opened (and possibly before construction started. The article is promotional, but that can be fixed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ORGSIG - your apparent argument that five-star hotels are inherently notable is belied by the policy. (Especially as, very likely, the stars are self-awarded.) Apparently, Romania has around 100 and Europe something like 1300 - we're heading into WP:NOTDIR territory if you propose having articles on all of these.
- Please also see WP:SUSTAINED - yes, an announcement about the project ran a year ahead of the opening (that also happens routinely), but the vast majority of coverage centers around the opening itself. There truly isn't any indication of long-term encyclopedic significance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "Romania Hotel Award" fills a local niche and doesn't prove notability in the slightest. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has received detailed coverage in the media that means it is notable. If it was not that notable it had not received that much coverage, that too in the top tier media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apifara (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Apifara (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I live in Cluj Napoca and I certify that all sources are real. The hotel is amazing architecture and is on old historical place Fabbrica de bere Ursus. The first beer machine is still there keep it well. For us people from Cluj is a nice thing that a building like this was constructed here. I think it should be keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaigruia1 (talk • (contribs) 16:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Mihaigruia1 (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It's not whether or not the sources are real, but whether they establish notability for the subject, and these currently don't. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE / WP:PROMO. An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable hotel; WP:TOOSOON for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are real and I don't see how it violates the WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. It has no prices listed nor does it advertise any businesses or products. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.131.16 (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC) - — 109.166.131.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I can’t see why this page should be deleted. There is no comercial infos there, is linked with a historical zone from Cluj, it has enough references. Personally, i would like to read about a modern hotel like that placed in such a place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.108.108 (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC) — 213.233.108.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Four of the five "keep" votes so far are from the article creator and three SPAs, all of whom have made similar comments on here while not signing their edits. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this hotel. Dubious keep votes by new SPA convinces me that someone is trying to game the system. Its time editors without an established history should not be able to access administrative boards, yes its a policy that anyone can edit wiki mainspace but need that apply to admin procedures? I think not Lyndaship (talk) 09:49, 30 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) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Gradon[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Winning beauty pageants does not automatically make one notable, while she, her death notwithstanding, had no distinct identity of her own outside of a reality show. Article was redirected to Love Island once but brought back, yet it still has zero encyclopedic content and no attempt has ever been made to establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 14:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this she was crowned Miss Great Britain in 2009. We do have articles about others whose initial claim to fame is winning that title, but I'm leaning towards redirect to something like Love Island (series 2) here. This is Paul (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beemer69, please inform creators when you tag articles for deletion. Her notability was questioned by an IP in 2016, my response is at Talk:Sophie Gradon and is worth reposting here: Gradon meets WP:BASIC: 'People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.' She has been the main focus of numerous articles in most of the British press, see sources in article or Google.

This article has numerous reliable sources cited, including The Independent, BBC News, Fox News, International Business Times, Evening Chronicle, The Guardian, the New Zealand Herald and Radio Times.

WP:ENTERTAINER: "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.' Both Miss Great Britain and Love Island are notable productions, and as a winner and a finalist, her role was significant in both. Gradon only needs to meet one aspect of notability criteria for an article, but she meets both BASIC and ENT." Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:CELEBRITY and WP:Hey. I added sources on her career as a marketing manager. She won a wikinotable pageant and had an influential career among the charities in Newcastle. Being a contestant a notable series further adds to notability. Her death was widely reported by notable news sources. All in all, I think notability is now established. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: her death was widely reported in the UK media: BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44570678), Independent, Sun, Daily Mail etc. She is obviously notable to gain such coverage. GrimRob (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The bio was at fault only due to its paucity of information. I suggest more information and not deletion. For what she did she meets the requirements for notability even if there is nothing else. I have suggested that biographical articles be deleted for a lack of notability (typically for criminal offenders) -- but not for the reason of a lack of information.Pbrower2a (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously notable. Gabinho^>:) 06:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:CELEBRITY and WP:Hey. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 25 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secom[edit]

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

I can't find anything which shows that this company is notable in the press or elsewhere. UaMaol (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't managed to find multiple reliable sources referencing this company - the only mentions in websites that I've been able to find are almost all primary, e.g. the company's website.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Keep. It appears that I was wrong - there are in fact good sources out there that I somehow never found before, and the company is notable. Thanks for finding those, everyone!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is a multi-national conglomerate and has 25k hits on Google News search using the company's Japanese name [13]. _dk (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added a couple of references, one an article in The Economist. See also the coverage of the firm's history and operating scope in "Top Global Companies in Japan", pages 99-105. (A Google Translate of the Japanese Wikipedia page shows much more information. I'd like to see some attention from a Japanese-speaker before offering a final opinion, but a listed company with an 18 storey headquarters building seems likely to be notable.) AllyD (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book Rediscovering Japanese Business Leadership has a lengthy chapter on SECOM. The publisher (Wiley) is considered notable and reliable publishing many technical books and they at least must have thought this notable enough to have it translated into English from the original Japanese. The information in that one source alone could enormously expand the article. SpinningSpark 22:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to keep––companies in the TOPIX Large 70 are almost certainly notable, and 99 out of 100 of the companies in the TOPIX 100 have articles on the English Wikipedia. Dekimasuよ! 16:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable comapny with international operations. Sourced, and that's just looking at sources in English. /Julle (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 19:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Copa do Brasil U-20 First Stage[edit]

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

More article nominating in this AfD as the same reason:

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

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

Semmendinger PRODed these articles, but his reason isn't acceptable becacuse WP:NFOOTBALL is only for people. However, I still nominate these articles to AfD because we don't create these articles for U-20 cup/league because these cups and league are low-notable, thanks. Note: You can consider merging context into 2018 Copa do Brasil Sub-20 because 2018 Copa do Brasil Sub-20 transculde these articles, thanks! Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging Semmendinger, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like I interpreted WP:FOOTY wrong too! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious fail WP:GNG, something with as little coverage as this should wait on having an article. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Main article has been substed. Hhkohh (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St. George, Rostov-on-Don[edit]

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

Non-notable Russian church. Sources are to the church's website, a biography of a priest, and a promotional tourist page. Article translated from Russian, but the Russian page has even fewer sources. Brad v 13:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete no claim to notability for ordinary parish church. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: -- fails reliable sourcing to establish notability as only reflinks are self-serving or promotional in nature. Quis separabit? 18:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there "ordinary" parish churches in russia? Being founded now? This could be unusual/notable. I don't know. --Doncram (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails every factor of my standards for churches. The Orthodox Church is building lots of new churches in Russia since the Putin regime came to power. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 29 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 02:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Concepcion[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX (was a declined AFC). PRehse (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 15 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 13:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article based on only one source, and Ghits revealed a few dozen people with this same name while virtually no results on the subject himself. Not notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that any criteria of WP:NBOX is met nor does WP:GNG appear to be met. The article doesn't appear to have any significant independent coverage and my own search didn't find anything I believe to be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:15, 24 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suhasini Haidar[edit]

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

Comfortably fails our notability guidelines.Near complete dearth of any substantial coverage about her and/or her works.Also, being invited to lit-fests do not contribute an iota to notability. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~ @Winged Blades of Godric: Is the Prem Bhatia award a notable one? I see that it has been awarded for a while but can't figure out whether it is notable or not. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to delete per WBG's response. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have much/any reasons to believe that the award is any more notable than the host of awards showered upon themselves by the media-industry which constitutes a major part of theirs' scratching each other's back......~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 20 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 13:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and notabilty is not inherited.122.164.245.80 (talk) 14:55, 27 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odisha Diary[edit]

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

How is this notable?!Almost non-existent sourcing and PR-stuff..... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no sources doing. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:04, 16 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 13:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant promotional article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 14:30, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open Sesame (manga)[edit]

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

Google search for reliable sources did not come up with anything, nor could I find any coverage at either Anime News Network or Crunchyroll. I also could not find any evidence that the series won any notable awards, therefor does not pass either WP:NOTE or WP:NBOOK. —Farix (t | c) 12:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --—Farix (t | c) 12:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 13:04, 22 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 13:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete all plot, no notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prinye Jaja[edit]

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

I declined an A7 request because based on what I can find on GNews ([14] [15]), I cannot rule out her being significant or important enough to pass A7, like due to her association with MC Galaxy, especially considering that Nigerian sources are likely harder to find for Westeners like myself.

However, I did look for sources and except the two I mentioned, I could not find any, so she fails WP:NARTIST, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO/WP:GNG. I briefly considered merging to Jaja of Opobo but I did not see the point since the connection is weak at best. Regards So Why 09:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per norm. She fails WP:NARTIST and WP:BASIC. Merging with Jaja of Opobo is not advised, apart from mention from [16] about being related to Jaja of Okpobo there's nothing or any source from GBOOKS dating back to time of Jaja that can also support that, usually in cases like this i use GBOOKS and there should be a few mentions but nothing of such in this case. Edidiong (talk) 10:55, 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 09:03, 15 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 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly too soon for her own WP article. In addition to the sources found by the previous editors in this debate, I also found this rather shallow interview: [17]. She has gotten some media coverage, most likely due to her notable relative, but her music has not yet been noticed beyond the usual self-promotional and MP3/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DOOMSDAYER520. Stanleytux (talk) 10:07, 24 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. MER-C 19:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maneesh Garg[edit]

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

Non-notable managing director and the group chief executive of a non-notable company Afriglobal Group with no actual in-depth coverage. All the sources are passing mentions and some of them are not reliable. Fails WP:BIO and a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Delete from me. Fails all kinds of notability standards. 2Joules (talk) 06:33, 14 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - standard resume, fails notability. Melcous (talk) 23:20, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peeled and Quartered[edit]

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

Non-notable book by red link author. The only source is a dead link. SL93 (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, a gsearch brings up nil reviews, WorldCat shows nil library holdings, theres even nothing on the publisher, originally created by a spa. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 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 09:03, 15 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 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No review or significant coverage found, fails WP:NBOOK. Hzh (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Resorts to namedropping James and the Giant Peach and A Clockwork Orange in a failed attempt to appear notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:01, 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 keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Zolkwer[edit]

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

The article has clearly been influenced by someone who knows him, or him himself, too many unnecessary details, on the talk page another editor already deleted a lot of other stuff that fell under WP:NOTPROMO, however there is still no significance other than him being one of the many people who's involved in marketing in the UK.

Most urls in the article are broken. Currently, the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th urls are non-existent.

That leaves us with: 3rd, 4th, 8th and 11th urls to judge his notability from.

In the 3rd url, Zolkwer is mentioned in the passing towards the end of the article ("But he and co-creative director David Zolkwer (right) have also developed their own theme"), he's a very minor figure in the article.

4th is a small column in sports section from 2002, the writer interviewed Zolkwer, Zolkwer was artistic director for opening and closing ceremonies of 2002 Commonwealth Games. This is the only mention of Zolkwer that can be suitable for notability.

8th is a non-reliable source, the article is about fire that broke in a ceremony, with Zolkwer's "epic" comment mentioned in the passing in the middle of the short article.

11th url is dailymail mentioning his works, which reads like an ad. Dailymail can be used as a source if it talks about a significant person/event, however here we must first determine whether being an art director for opening and closing ceremonies of 2002 Commonwealth Games is significant enough to warrant having a Wikipedia article.

So all in all, there is only one source that can be used as an argument for Wikipedia:Notability (people) test. I think it's not enough. Vizakenjack (talk) 04:36, 15 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 13:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just fixed some of the dead links, and I was able to find the others in databases (but not in a linkable form) – which is perfectly acceptable. Zolkwer is at least mentioned in each of them. The coverage is in his capacity as artistic director, and is mostly independent and reliable enough. The subject is (narrowly) notable. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 9:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)ic
Keep. Has coverage about him in reliable sources, not just glancing mentions, in particular the articles appearing in the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. Curiocurio talk) contribs) 01:17, 23 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Menace[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO. Local band with little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "references" tell the story here. Enigma^msg 20:01, 29 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. Enigma^msg 19:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dooney Boys[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Non-notable local street gang with minimal depth of coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why every article i have created they are all marked for deletion? if the gang is not "notable there wouldn't be multiple articles on them. Please give me an explanation why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codo2411 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because, at least in this case, whatever articles you do have are sources we normally do not accept (blogs) or merely name-check the gang without going into any serious discussion or exploration of it. Blogs are generally not viable as sources, and passing mentions like name-drops or quotables never are (because in-depth sources will cover that information and much more). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is one of several recently created articles about local street gangs including Ride or Die Gang, Young Melph Mafia, 110ers Gang, Taliban Gang, and 39ers Gang. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Yes i know but i don't understand why delete? i made sure every single source was not copyrighted material. I apologize for removing the notice from 39ers Gang i thought it was okay if i fixed the article. if it's anything i can do let me know so i can fix them before they are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codo2411 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the sourcing issues. Three of the sources cited are quite evidently blogs based on their URLs, and the other two are name-drops that cannot help for notability what-so-ever. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all blog links from the article Dooney Boys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codo2411 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG without non-trivial coverage from other than local reliable sources. They get a paragraph in Time and single sentences in other publications. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few passing book mentions (around Katrina - they were covered by TIME in a piece that was then briefly quoted). Not sufficient for NCRIME or CORPDEPTH.Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 25 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Whitaker[edit]

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

Virtually the only reliable sources about this guy are minor mentions of the fact that he's a quack. I would say, based on what I can find, that he is not a notable quack. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article reads like a promo for the subject's business. Does not pass WP:Bio and fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:25, 24 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 BAFA National Leagues. Redirecting as the team is listed on the league page and !delete was not opposed. I am not opposed to the reversal of this redirect in the event that notability is achieved or other sources are found that establish notability. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swindon Storm[edit]

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

Article is about a third-tier British American football team, so no clear notability. Coverage is limited to reporting in local press. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:12, 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 09:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BAFA National Leagues. No sign of meeting GNG, and I don't expect this to meet any SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete only one source? almost no content. Redirect seems suitable too. Perhaps one day it will be notable, but it doesn't look that has achieved yet. No prejudice against re-creating article if notability is achieved (or other sources are provided to establish notability that I haven't found).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:13, 29 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the Family for Children's Sake[edit]

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

Fails notability under WP:GNG. This is a former, deregistered political party which unsuccessfully contested a negligible number of constituencies. Most of the sources on the page are either from the party itself or from election results. If it were a person, it would uncontroversially fail WP:NPOLITICIAN MB190417 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing has happened since deregistration that improves notability. Blackguard 20:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per reasons provided. I tried a Google search for sources which might prove evidence of notability, but was unable to find anything substantial. The lack of sources on this party is unlikely to improve since deregistration. ToastButterToast (talk) 17:21, 27 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. Enigma^msg 19:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban Gang[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Non-notable local street gang with minimal depth of coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was one of five recently created articles about local street gangs including Ride or Die Gang, Young Melph Mafia, 110ers Gang, Dooney Boys, and 39ers Gang. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local New Orleans coverage (and not that much) - not enough for NCRIME or CORPDEPTH (if we would deem that relevant for a criminal enterprise).Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 25 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. Enigma^msg 19:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

110ers Gang[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Non-notable local street gang with minimal depth of coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was one of five recently created articles about local street gangs including Ride or Die Gang, Young Melph Mafia, Taliban Gang, Dooney Boys, and 39ers Gang. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local New Orleans coverage - less than 20 news item. Not enough for NCRIME or CORPDEPTH.Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 25 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hands You Shake[edit]

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

The only reference is the one currently in the article. Can't find any other coverage of it in independent reliable sources. Doesn't meet wp:gng nor does it appear to meet wp:nfilm. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Web Talent Marketing[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable SEO firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Native advertising. Creator Foger4 has no edits outside this topic. MER-C 11:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice :). Does not meet WP:NCORP & corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Much obliged for the improvements! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Jordan Gardner[edit]

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

After reading the talk-page discussion of this person's notability, I just can't see it. Yes, there are some mentions of her in the local press, and an entry in a gazetteer of women. But what entitles her to a place in our encyclopaedia, where is the in-depth coverage that would allow us to write an article that demonstrates the importance of her achievements? She was a high-school teacher, perhaps a capable one, for some fifteen years, and then got married. Her principal claim to fame appears to be (according to the Oakland Tribune) that she was present at the opening of Stanford in 1891; she was there as her father's daughter, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red. Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability just not there for this person. Instead of writing about dead white females of marginal notability, why not write about Women of color whose notability is more firmly established. One such who has been in the media recently is Dr Priyamvada Gopal who probably passes both WP:Prof and WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: you're wildly out of line here. Don't question the motives of people who create articles in good faith or turn this into some WP:WAX crap. Women of color don't get any more representation because I'm focused on physics. Or because some people write about lepidoptera, or US roads. Writing about dead white females likewise doesn't impede your ability to write about women of color profs, so if you think Priyamvada Gopal deserves an article, the best way to go about that it to write that article, not delete others completely unrelated to it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deny questioning the motives of any editors, certainly not yourself. I have no reason to suppose that anybody's motives in this AfD are anything but sincere. My suggestion was that some directions of editing are more likely to be productive than others. As for your later WP:Hey, I have noted the improvements to the article but I think it is still sub-marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I think that if you want to make a good contribution, you need to write about what interest you and what you feel comfortable to write about. a) Priyamvada Gopal is a living person, and aside for few, rare exception (mostly to save other people articles from deletion) I do not feel comfortable to write about living people. b) I mostly write about independent women, LGBTQ people, ... I do not care about their race. If the majority of people I write are white, is propably because that is what I found availble during my researches. The lesbian/bisexual/transgender women of color I know about have already wikipedia pages (Audre Lorde, Barbara Jordan, Angela Hunter,...). I created the article about Barbara May Cameron. I could also start an argument here (already anylized by some social studies) that homosexuality among people of color has been hidden way more than among white people. Most of the time homosexuality among people of color, if not possible to be hidden, was passed as bisexuality (see most of the novel by E. Lynn Harris, that even if was writing fiction, was also representing an attitude of people of color). To close the point Priyamvada Gopal is a living person and I did not research her, but she is probably not a lesbian. Therefore it remains only the fact she is an independent woman (most likely). Not enough to make her an article I would be comfortable to write. But other users, like the one naming her here, should be really consider her. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just doesn't make it. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lean delete~~, but someone could examine [18] in deeper detail and perhaps make a case for it. Seems she wasn't just a member of some of these clubs, but rather their president. That could bolster the case for notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:HEY basically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was the chairman of the Department of Legislation Oakland Forum. Member of the Oakland Forum of the League of Women Voters. President of the Town and Gown Club, Member of the Berkeley City Club, Stanford Club of the Eastbay and Cornell Women's Club of Northern California. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of some editors' beliefs that society ladies should not be notable, or that women who marry and are forced from their jobs for being married should lose any notability they once had, the referencing of the article (including a major newspaper obituary and an entry in a major biographical dictionary) makes clear that she does pass WP:GNG. The nomination statement itself is a bit of a giveaway; the nominator has clearly read the obituary, which explicitly states "she was an outstanding person in her own right", and details her teaching and later lecturing career, but instead falsely pretends that the only thing it says about her is her presence at an event and inserts the opinion (unjustified by any reading of GNG) that this is not something worthy of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case that snide remark is intended to cover me, I am very far from believing that "society ladies should not be notable". But it is clear from the article that, like most school-teachers, she was not a "society lady" in any normal sense of the term. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, to support your position, how many times in the 1910s when a MAN died, the news was reported in relation to the WOMAN in his life? "Fiance of Miss Jordan is found dead in room", she was so much more notable than her fiance, that she is the one in the head title of the newspaper reporting his death... Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article about her in a biographical directory such as Women of the West; a series of biographical sketches of living eminent women in the eleven western states of the United States of America is a reliable source that can be a good basis for an article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing now establishes notability. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I have already explained on the talk page of the article, on the difference of the tens of thousands of other dedicated American High School teachers, this teacher, who was also active in the League of Women Voters, was included in "Binheim, Max; Elvin, Charles A (1928). Women of the West; a series of biographical sketches of living eminent women in the eleven western states of the United States of America", and in that book there are just few hundreds of women. Moreover as I told above, how many times in the 1910s when a MAN died, the news was reported in relation to the WOMAN in his life? "Fiance of Miss Jordan is found dead in room", she was so much more notable than her fiance, that she is the one in the head title of the newspaper reporting his death... I think enough for WP:GNG here. And I also improved the article with more reliable and independent sources. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Greatly improved today by multiple editors. Meets notability. — Maile (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article greatly improved during a short four hour period with the addition of many new citations (many behind paywalls and hard to initially access), especially the addition of new citations that supported her work in the Women's Right movement PRIOR to the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920. Too bad the article had required the threat of deletion before people would step up to help locate badly needed citations that were need to support the person's notability. (BTW, Jordan was probably mentioned prominently in the Los Angeles Herald article about Berwick's death because Jordan was well known in the high society circles of Southern California at that time, based upon her being mentioned numerous times in the society pages of the L.A. Times, while Berwick was a virtual unknown who rarely left Northern California. In contrast, Jordan is barely mentioned in the Northern California newspaper that had reported the same event and it appeared that Berwick was well known on Northern California social circles. BTW, has anyone been able to newspaper articles about Jordan's engagement and marriage to Nathaniel Gardner in 1915? I wonder if Jordan is mentioned more prominently than Gardner in those articles.) If a few more citations can be located, I believe that the article has the potential for GA. 50.195.200.161 (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

50.195.200.161, added 2 articles from the wedding and clipped the one from the engagement, so that people can read them to source. I agree with you, I was retired and I did not want to contribute anymore, but I soon realized that, if I wasn't to do something, the page was to be deleted just because no one seemed to care. I have already noticed in the past that, if you start to take care of a page, other will join (thank you) but apparently you have always to take the first step to spur reaction. Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisa.rolle: don't be discouraged, people tried to get the article on particle deleted once. It's now considered a WP:VA4 article, and led to the formulation of WP:BCA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb:, I'm still of the idea to remain retired. Just want to avoid an article I created get deleted for the wrong reasons. I wrote the article, but the article is not "mine". And removing useful and worthy info from Wikipedia is not something that I like to see. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisa.rolle: The question is, does such "useful and worthy" information stand a better chance to remain in Wikipedia with or without you around to make a case for it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb:, there is so much ignorance here on Wikipedia (and I'm using the term ignorance in the positive sense, not as a derogative word) that is really difficult for me to decide to retire and stay so. Example from today? Mildred McMillen, she moved to Provincetown from France with her companion, Ada Gilmore. Their couple portrait is one of the few surviving pieces at Smithsonian American Art Museum, where the same Gilmore is showcased. In 1925 Gilmore left McMillen to marry Oliver Chaffee, another well known artist. Where is the ignorance? In McMillen's page, Gilmore is not named, while it's enough to read the many biographies of McMillen in various books and they are always paired, their portrait considered one example of LGBT domestic partnership [19]. Ada Gilmore and Oliver Chaffee do not have a page, even if they are often named in other people biographies of the time. But a group of people decided it was better to convince me my knowledge was not necessary to Wikipedia, and every time I notice something wrong and try to help, they use petty means to let me know my contributions are not welcomed. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisa.rolle: As someone with works in the permanent collections of the Smithsonian American Art Museum, Cleveland Museum of Art, and Indianapolis Museum of Art (at least), Gilmore is clearly notable and would be easy to defend at an AfD should a new article be taken there. The material on her relation with McMillen seems harder to source though, or at least harder to find sources that don't bury it in heavy layers of euphemism such as "cozy cameraderie" or say that the existence of their relation was "unclear". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein:, if I was to write the article, I would not assume they McMillen and Gilmore were lovers. But it's true that they moved from Chicago to France and then Provincetown together and that they lived together during this period. They send Christmas Cards to friends as a family unit (McMillen, Gilmore and their cat). Therefore they were companion (and I use companion and not partners or lovers). The fact that Gilmore is not named in McMillen's biography is an important missing point. I said LGBT domestic partnership cause Provincetown is now a gay resort, and people studying the genesi of this gay resort identified also McMillen and Gilmore as examples. I know that Ada Gilmore's article would survive an AfD, but my point is that, in one year, no one noticed a) Gilmore is missing from McMillen's page b) Gilmore does not have a page herself. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisa.rolle: See new article Ada Gilmore (and minor expansion of McMillen). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to further expansion, the article now documents notability.--Ipigott (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, there seems to be consensus here that this person meets the WP:GNG; that is, in case anyone has forgotten, just a guideline. As it tells us, "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". For a person to have a Wikipedia article, he or she needs to have actually done something of some significant interest or importance, unlike this person, who lived a fairly ordinary and uninteresting life typical of a person in her social position at the time. I suggest again that of the fairly limited coverage she received, a good part at least is due to her very notable father. To the "keep" !voters: if she is so significant, where is the coverage of her in modern reliable sources? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinions about what kinds of activities might be important are irrelevant here. And having a more-famous relative is also not a valid reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Coverage in modern reliable sources" does not have much meaning for women's histories. Prior to 1970, there were no academic studies of women in history. Only the "famous" (which is quite different from notable) were researched. Most of the women who were abolitionists and suffragists, considered prominent historical figures today, had no biographies written prior to that time. That lesser known women are still being discovered should surprise absolutely no one. That modern sources are yet to emerge on many significant historical women should also not be surprising. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After the recent expansion, the subject is now notable enough to merit an article. Edwardx (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 29 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. Enigma^msg 19:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bombarika[edit]

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

Recently released mobile game. Has it already established notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. FITINDIA 11:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per above, per nom; repeatedly recreated from draft space. In any case, the reportage is—with the exception of blogs, zines and tablods—absolutely minimal—and only passing mentions anyway; there's nothing in any kind of relevant literature either. This is not a case of TOOSOON (yet!)—this is a solid case of spamming. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never knew i helped someone's draft when he is a employer of the games, my bad. MayaZ使字斯^Poke! 07:30 PM, 22 June 2018

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt per Serial Number 54129 above, I can't find significant coverage from reliable, independent sources and a clear-cut violation of WP:COI/WP:PAID. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is fine here. This is the only WP:RS review (as per WP:VG/S) covering the topic in some detail. --Izno (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete/SALT - article was created by an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet (User:Mayamaya7) who has a history of copy-vio and adding non-notable content, as well as creating or restoring articles already deleted or redirected per being non-notable, against WP:CONSENSUS. R9tgokunks ⯃ 00:05, 25 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Jordan[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 10:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 10:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait/weak delete: There seem to be a reasonable number of sources available for the subject of the article. Clearly the article itself needs a stylistic clear-up and a few more citations: it was only created three days ago, and I think it'd be unfair to delete it until such a clear-up has occurred, so that it's clearer to assess the number of sources and information available on the subject. I suppose the guideline that this hinges on is WP:ENTERTAINER. If the sources can demonstrate a large enough following, then fine. But my instinct is they probably won't. MB190417 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding enough reliable sources to support inclusion. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 13:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Available sources are primary or WP:ROUTINE. Nikki♥311 21:16, 28 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Melph Mafia[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Non-notable local street gang with minimal depth of coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was one of five recently created articles about local street gangs including Ride or Die Gang, 110ers Gang, Taliban Gang, Dooney Boys, and 39ers Gang. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: more than just five. I see D-Block Boys in the contributor's new articles also. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. A bit more notable than the others in the bunch, but still just local New Orleans coverage around a couple of court cases. Not sufficient for NCRIME or CORPDEPTH.Icewhiz (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. All it has is a sprinkling of local coverage about a local gang. Enigma^msg 19:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORP requires significant coverage of national, or at least regionsl, scope. This gang has neither. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 29 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. Enigma^msg 19:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ride or Die Gang[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Non-notable local street gang with minimal depth of coverage.Magnolia677 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails notability. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was one of five recently created articles about local street gangs including Young Melph Mafia, 110ers Gang, Taliban Gang, Dooney Boys, and 39ers Gang. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local New Orleans coverage - less than 10 news item. Not enough for NCRIME or CORPDEPTH.Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 25 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. Enigma^msg 19:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mumzworld[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability. References are based on advertorial profiles such as Expat Echo (article also has no attributed journalist) and fails WP:ORGIND and company announcements about funding (fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice :). Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Promo 'cruft and part of a (likely UPE) walled garden. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 19:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fetchr[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability. References are based on interviews/quotations from company sources (fails WP:ORGIND), profiles in Crunchbase/Forbes/Bloomberg (fails WP:ORGCRIT) advertorial profiles such as Entrepreneur.com (fails WP:ORGIND) and company announcements (fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Just promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 19:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Ataya[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill business woman. A few interviews published but no indications of notability, fails WP:BASIC HighKing⁺⁺ 10:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Nn businessperson, created by a SPA, possibly as a walled-garden / UPE around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumzworld. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 23 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Majnu (2018 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG. The coverage is routine coverage of future films. The release has been postponed. The coverage that I found in a before search is the usual Bollywood PR fluff that goes with every new release. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any reliable sources that the release date of August 24 has been postponed. Where are you getting this information from? Yamada Taro (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The poster and original PR stuff annonced a May release date this was postponed to August. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:05, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonal Vengurlekar[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The 3-4 reliable sources with coverage that i found, was about her break-up. All the other sources are tabloid like gossip websites, not reliable; or they are database/listings like imdb. Subject fails general notability criteria, and WP:NACTOR, and WP:ANYBIO. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR with at least three prominent roles in quite lengthy television series Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 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. Enigma^msg 19:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shetall Siingh[edit]

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

Article makes a lot of claims that might actually make her a notable person but when I tried to follow up on them, I cannot find any coverage of her at all. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. So Why 08:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The final datestamp on page 2 of File:Shetall Siingh name change.pdf shows she only finished changing her name yesterday, and that the file must have been uploaded almost as soon as the notary's ink had dried. Searching her previous name Ridhwana Khan shows that she is an employee of Bhupendra Kumar Modi. She has no notability separate from his. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cabayi above and this looks like a case of CSD G5 too. The article was earlier created by Shetall Siingh (talk · contribs) in draftspace under Draft:Sheetal Siingh (CEO). GSS (talk|c|em) 16:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The draft's text is noticeable different from this article, so it's doubtful that this was created by the same person. Might be undeclared paid editing though. Regards So Why 16:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom and Cabayi.But in all fairness, the A7 tagging was bad.∯WBG^converse 15:26, 24 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)} 21:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Prince[edit]

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

Not a notable sports agent. The references in prominent news sources are trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promoter with no evidence of notability. The article name drops many celebrities but doesn't provide the reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish notability, nor could they be found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 27 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacklyn Pezzotta[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized BLP of a make-up artist, not based on any evidence of reliable source coverage about her to establish that she meets any notability criterion. Of the four references cited here, three are primary sources which are not support for notability, and the fourth tangentially verifies the existence of something called the "Facilitative-Directive Process Model" while completely failing to verify that Jacklyn Pezzotta has anything whatsoever to do with it. As always, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN: a person has to be the subject of media coverage, in sources other than her own self-published WP:SPIP, to qualify for an article on here. Bearcat (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable sources; only brief mentions of her placement at Miss Teen USA as far as I can see and nothing since then comes close to establishing notability ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 09:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most recent edit has resolved most of the aforementioned issues regarding unreliable, self published primary sources. Article is looking less subject to WP:SPIP. Notability exists with relevant references to her previous titles. 04:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.210.7.102 (talk)

Sure, you removed the sources to her own self-published website. But her beauty pageant stuff is still sourced to the beauty pageant's self-published website rather than to media coverage about it, which is still primary sourcing that doesn't assist in making a person notable, and the only new source you've added is a blurb in a smalltown community weekly pennysaver, which doesn't cut any mustard at WP:GNG because it's not substantive and the publication isn't widely distributed enough to make her nationally notable all by itself. GNG is not automatically passed the moment one piece media coverage exists anywhere at all without regard to context — GNG has minimum standards of volume and range and depth that any given piece of media coverage has to pass before it counts as a data point toward fulfilling GNG, and GNG requires several pieces of media coverage and not just one. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant media coverage.--JAMillerKC (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite winning Miss New Jersey Teen USA, the coverage in reliable and verifiable sources about her is extremely thin and superficial. Nothing more meaningful can be found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 27 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)} 21:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otto J. Placik[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are single line entries, listings, PR items, or are from the individual. reddogsix (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure if any of those are reliable sources. This is a promotional piece. Natureium (talk) 14:36, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Eberling Sr.[edit]

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

delete as per WP:HOAX. According to reliable sources the inventor of spaghettiOs is Donald Goerke. I can't find anything that says this guy invented them except for what appears to be a paid obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer [20] Of course I can't even confirm that this is what appeared in the Inquirer either as legacy.com is likely not reliable. Unless someone can find something else, I think this is just one big giant hoax. Rusf10 (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This article explains the confusion. Here is a clipping of the obit in the Philadelphia Inquirer (he died in Philly) was written by staff writer Sally Downey, and certainly isn't paid. There are a few more sources about him, and I think he is clearly encyclopedic, even as a bit of a human-interest story. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Withdrawn- upon discovery of additional sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:53, 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. Enigma^msg 19:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Women Have A Higher Sex Drive?[edit]

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

promotional article for non notable film, DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find absolutely no sources remotely worth adding when I search for them. Fails [[WP:NFILM]] and [[WP:GNG]], delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 09:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources i could find were proof of existence or teasers. It's not impossible that I'm missing something since there is some academic research plus various other articles on the same thing, but with targeted searches not bringing up anything it fails NFILM and GNG until demonstrated otherwise. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 13:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, notability aside, WP:TNT applies here.Accesscrawl (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nosebagbear. Only existence, nothing approaching coverage, much less significant coverage. Given the material I'm sure it will get noticed, but there's nothing out there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:12, 27 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. Enigma^msg 05:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV Pervert[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film series. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. First AfD closed as "No consensus" in 2008. Ten years on, it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as it does not pass WP:NFILM or WP:GNG and the awards are in niche categories, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM & WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awards given by porn promoters to promote their advertisers or clients fall far below NFILM requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:01, 28 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. Enigma^msg 05:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koobface2000[edit]

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

Hoax, there is no variant of the Koobface malware under this name, 15 hits on Google, all of which appear to originate from Wikipedia. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT as the original creator may well just try and create it again (especially as it seems like a single purpose account with no other edits). Alot of the refs are for Koobface which may appear to make the article credible until you scrutinise further and find this isn't the case. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing about this specific malware from an online search, except from sites which appear to have copied and pasted straight from the Wikipedia page. Per Champion, this looks like a hoax and should be deleted. Tillerh11 (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's too soon to SALT since this appears to be the page's first creation, but it's almost certainly a hoax, and definitely doesn't belong here. Pinging Legacypac to get his thoughts as the editor who accepted the draft. Nanophosis (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page looks on its face quite legit well written with lots of refs. I may not have noticed the 2000 part of the title and this is not an area I'm super familiar with. One of the advantages of mainspace is many editor see a page and someone will pick up on anomalies like this. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 23 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)} 21:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Turner (radio broadcaster)[edit]

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

A radio broadcaster turned real estate podcaster. Sources provided are primary with either home page, interview and promotional article. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:ANYBIO that does not merit a stand alone page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another weekend real estate brokered host who pays to get on the radio without much more about him than that. Nate • (chatter) 07:02, 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. Enigma^msg 19:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018–2019 Hashtag United season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS. Jamez42 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 01:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 01:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And up the Hashtags! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hashtag United as per WP:NSEASONS which states "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a club that plays six levels below the lowest professional league definitely does not merit an individual season article. Granted the club has attracted some media coverage disproportionate for the level at which they play, but there is no evidence that the coming season will attract the truly extraordinary level of coverage which would be needed for a GNG pass. BTW, if by any chance the article gets kept then it needs to be moved because the correct format for a season is 20XX-YY, not 20XX-20YY............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability. Giant Snowman 12:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not notable enough to have an individual season article. Redirect to the team page, per Bungle. Tillerh11 (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't really understand the reason for redirecting it as a) it's not notable b) it's a very unlikely search-term and c) it's not even in the correct format for season articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are probably not aware of the team, it is a likely search term zvikorn ^zvikorn 22:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and why the hell would you want to redirect to the club page? That makes no sense, who on earth is going to search for a season that hasn't even been played yet in a league way down the league ladder??? Govvy (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This team is very popular on youtube, even thought it is in a very low league they have plenty of fans and they page will only grow once the season starts. zvikorn (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: zvikorn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete - Why would you have a seasonal article for a team that isn't in the Football League. Yeah just because its a team that is on YouTube doesn't mean anything and yes I am a fan of the team. Animation is developing 10:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment because fans want to know whats going on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvikorn (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Then they can find out from the club's website. It's not like if this information isn't on Wikipedia then it won't be available at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. Yes, this is a weirdly notable team and so this season might end up being notable if it gets sufficient coverage, but that can be reviewed once at least a reasonable proportion of the season has passed, certainly not before it has even begun. Fenix down (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON applies in that case. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 11:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BitIRA[edit]

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

A cryptocurrency related product that does not appear to be notable; no reliable sources found that satisify WP:NCORP. Reliable sources on page either do not mention BitIRA or do not offer signficant coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotion for a non-notable "crypto" company. Some of the references are about the concept of having Bitcoin in an IRA, not the specific financial firm which the article discusses power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; significant RS coverage not found. Just promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 24 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.