< 3 June	5 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 redirect to Butcher Babies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Shepherd[edit]

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

I see some fluff interviews in industry publications, but nothing that would indicate notability as described at WP:ARTIST or WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (revert so article redirects to Butcher Babies). Poorly sourced as indicated in nom. No notability beyond being part of Butcher Babies. Article needs complete rewrite from better sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Butcher Babies. She has done a few minor things outside of her band, but they are not enough to merit a separate article in WP. This article may have been created because her bandmate Carla Harvey has her own article (which by the way needs to be cleaned up badly), but Harvey has actually gained notice for activities outside the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:32, 10 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 16:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Barham[edit]

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

County politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN, not many sources either. Rusf10 (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, local politician that doesn't meet WP:GNG. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 00:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG - a cursory before search under a couple of different names didn't bring much up. SportingFlyer talk 01:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems many years ago a certain (presumably retired) editor created several articles on politicians that clearly fail NPOL, including this one. Why, we may never know for sure. Perhaps we can bundle a few of these politicians into one AFD to settle this issue more efficiently?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGracefulSlick:I would have gladly bundled, but every time I do, a small group of people try to derail the discussion with "procedural keeps" even though there clearly nothing wrong with the bundle.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 understood. That small group of editors tend to be the same usual suspects I deal with as well. Looks like we just have to share the burden.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of this article fails wp:politician, as he has not held statewide office or higher, and the wp:gng as I could not find any substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Zingarese (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the reason to be very careful about bundling is that it is very easy for an editor looking too narrowly at a political career, to miss other sources of notability, and, because some major media are behind paywalls, and some active politicians were more notable a couple of decades ago, editors who lack access to multiple news archives bundle apples and oranges together.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete neither Barham's business career nor his political career appear to meet WP standards of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I guess I'll close this one out. No statewide office, no inherent notability, not enough sources. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 15:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inconvenience[edit]

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

A fairly pointless page creation with a soft redirect to Wiktionary, and seemingly ineligible for CSD. It fulfils no purpose other than to divert or delay users looking for articles beginning with that word (and there are a lot of them), and would rarely if ever be searched for on its own. It therefore goes against the last line of the guidelines in ((wi)) which state:

"Do not place it on every possible word. Soft redirects to Wiktionary are to dictionary definitions, and generally Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Only use it when:

There is no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title, and
There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect, and
There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary, and (my emphasis...)
Readers search for it on Wikipedia."

I do not believe users would ever search for "inconvenience" on its own. Maybe other editors do? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To me fails the no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title criterion-~~haven’t made a study of it but would eat my hat if there’s no academic material on the subject of inconvenience in law, philosophy, literature, etc.~~ Should have known; a glance at Google Scholar shows a number of economics sub fields engage the topic. Seems appropriate to delete until someone wishes to start an encyclopedic page. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep add soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:POINTWIKT. Fits the description for the referral to Wiktionary based on a WP search for the word. Operator873^CONNECT 02:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:POINTWIKT makes it clear that the guidelines for what is acceptable as a soft redirect to Wiktionary is in the documentation for ((Wiktionary redirect)) (which I pasted above) and which, to me, self-evidently does not meet its own 4th guideline. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes:After considering the points presented on your other AfD, I've elected to strike my Keep vote from this AfD as well. Thank you. Operator873^CONNECT 02:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's argument - surely this is a rare thing to search? (query - how did nom find it? ;) ) To a lesser degree I also agree with Nick Moyes - I wouldn't be surprised to see actual articles that would belong on this spot. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: To answer your question, I certainly didn't search for it! Why would anyone? I'm actually a New Page Reviewer and came across the ridiculously-named article, Merely, which I AFD-ed immediately using the inbuilt Page Curation tool that reviewers have access to. Checking the article creator's other pages always seems appropriate to me, and I came across this one amongst their otherwise weird, wacky and interesting contributions. I'd invite anyone who spends time here at AFD to consider volunteering at WP:NPP - we've got the backlog down to 3,400 unreviewed new articles. More help still needed, folks! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)\[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense. I might try out NPP in a bit - however I only joined AfC a bit over a week ago! Between AfC, AfD, Vandal Patrol I'm lacking time to create as it is - think NPP might be a step too far!

I'm trying to think which one is on iffier grounds - merely or inconvenience. I do feel a need to go see the creator's other edits just out of interest. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merely[edit]

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

A pointless page creation with a soft redirect to Wiktionary, and seemingly ineligible for CSD. It fulfils no purpose other than to divert or delay users looking for articles beginning with that word, and would never be searched for on its own. It goes against the guidelines in ((wi)) which states:

"Do not place it on every possible word. Soft redirects to Wiktionary are to dictionary definitions, and generally Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Only use it when:

There is no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title, and
There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect, and
There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary, and (my emphasis...)
Readers search for it on Wikipedia."

I do not believe users would ever search for "merely" on its own. Maybe other editors do? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed in Wikipedia, per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POINTWIKT, someone searching WP for 'Merely' should be redirected to Wiktionary. Also effectively salts further article creation. Operator873^CONNECT 02:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why would anyone think we need to stop someone creating a pointless article by having a pointless page directing to Wiktionary when no-one is ever likely to such on the word 'merely' on its own? If we follow your logic, every single word in the English language should have its own page! What fun that would give users when the Search box offers them a single word as the first option which doesn't deliver anything useful, except to salt article creation which is unlikely ever to be an issue for tens of thousands of words. No, sorry - that logic doesn't work for me, at all, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gladly admit I may not be understanding the spirit of the guideline. And I acknowledge salting every word in the English language could spiral wildly out of control. However, if the article was created, wouldn't solving the issue of recreation also be prudent? Operator873^CONNECT 23:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873: I don't think it's just the spirit of the guideline you're misunderstanding. Feel free to strike your !vote if you're having second thoughts. But are you seriously suggesting that, because a wiktionary redirect which fails to meet our guidelines was created, we shouldn't delete it, but keep it here so as to simply stop it being recreated once we've deleted it? Nah, that sort of logic does my head in. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I have never been above addressing a mistake I've potentially made. After considering the issue and your arguments, I will strike my vote. Operator873^CONNECT 02:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majobritánico[edit]

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

Article has no references, and I cannot find any mention of the article's subject on either the spanish wikipedia or on the internet in general. Xevus11 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely unsourced, 9 results on Google, and seems to be a case of WP:DICT. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 22:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is in Spanish. An identically titled page about the term was speedy-deleted from eswiki in 2015. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT and because the article was speedied on eswiki. Nanophosis (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is made up by the author and is a typical A11 candidate. As the Spanish deletion log says translated: "Majobritánico is a term created by the actor Aydan Woodward to better describe his nationality." It was deleted as an editing test. Sam Sailor 01:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Robbins[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find notability online. As noted at the top of the article, it's based on an interview the author did with the subject a couple weeks ago. Natureium (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very very strong delete This is the worst abuse of article space I have ever seen. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to publish interviews with veterans who served minor roles in war. All the more so when they include backing claims 40 almost 50 years after the fact with quotes that do not actually support what is said. The editor who dumped this in Wikipedia would do well to read accounts on the meaning of memory and then studying what Wikipedia is and is not before creating another article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:V, the "interview conducted by S. Guthier" doesn't appear to be public elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MILPEOPLE as well as WP:ANYBIO. The "Legionnaire of the Year" award was not a national, state, or even regional level award, it was for the local Post, therefore not notable. Operator873^CONNECT 02:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article was obviously created in good faith, but the creator should have a look at What Wikipedia is not. The subject does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:SOLDIER, and the lack of independent sources means he also doesn't meet WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 18:15, 6 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. Both sides have valid arguments: the event is likely not to take place, but sources about it exist. Sandstein 09:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom)[edit]

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

Due to the farce that is Brexit, this election is almost certainly not going to happen, so its existence is a clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. I have no problem with it being restored if by some miracle the elections do happen, but for the meantime, it should be replaced by a redirect to European Parliament election, 2019, where it is explained several times that the UK is not electing any members (I had attempted to redirect it (and it was previously a redirect for over a year for the aforementioned reason), but this was reverted with a suggestion to go to AfD). Number 5 7 21:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:CRYSTAL states that the event must be almost certain to take place, and Brexit casts a substantive doubt. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 22:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect). Government position is that this election won't happen. The European Parliament has also reduced and redistributed the seats for the next term of the parliament. --RaviC (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is enough RS material about the proposed election to satisfy the GNG, but WP:CRYSTAL is clear and policy. Perhaps material from this article could be moved to a section in Brexit with a redirect? It'd be nice if it was all in one place to link to from the European elections in the UK series. Ralbegen (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per this discussion. It was widely reported on 27 May 2018 that £829,000 had been set aside by the Electoral Commission for "activities relating to a European Parliamentary election in 2019. The lead section clearly states that the current status is cancelled, the lead section also clearly states: The Commission has described the money as a "precautionary measure, so that we have the necessary funds to deliver our functions at a European Parliamentary election, in the unlikely event that they do go ahead." It would actually be a breach of WP:CRYSTAL to delete the article on the basis that they definitely will not go ahead. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that argument is backwards. WP:CRYSTAL requires certainty that it will go ahead, not certainty that it won't. Number 5 7 16:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...which is the problem. The article was restored when it emerged that £829,000 had been set aside to administer it. WP:CRYSTAL now requires certainty that it will not go ahead. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Number 5 7 11:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Just out of curiosity which editors were notified as per WP:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, because I know I wasn't. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Editors would have been notified via the article alerts for the EU, Elections & Referendums and UK Politics WikiProjects. Or by seeing it on their watchlist. Number 5 7 16:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they are getting alerts from those WikiProjects or have it on their watchlist. Neither of which I do. I just happened to click on the article and noticed the AfD on it. As per: WP:Articles for deletion#Notifying substantial contributors to the article: it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the European Parliament announced in January 2018 that the UK's seats would be held in reserves or shared out.^[1] This, in my opinion, makes it clear that there are no scheduled European Elections in the United Kingdom in 2019. Therefore the article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. Digestive Biscuit (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the article, which was written back in January: The remaining 27 British seats ought to be re-distributed among the 14 EU countries that are slightly under-represented, to even out current inequalities in their representation in the House, says the committee. "Ought to be", the lead section reflects this. The announcement of the £829,000 was made in May, and the EU Withdrawal bill has suffered 15 defeats in the House of Lords since.

Suggestion for closing admin: The situation is fluid. Parliamentary ping-pong is due to take place from 12 June to the end of the month on this. Leave this AfD open until after that process has taken place.^[2] --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles when we have enough RS material to make an article. That's the basic principle behind AfDs. We have enough material, so we have an article. Re-title it "Possible election..." if you're worried about WP:CRYSTAL. Bondegezou (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL: As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. There is sufficient reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, and this is the most sensible place to include the material about e.g. set-aside funding. Ralbegen (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The probable non-election is already covered at European Parliament election, 2019 though, so there doesn't seem to be any justification in a separate sub-article saying the same thing. Number 57 18:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is not as much detail there, but I personally wouldn't be averse to a merge outcome if that section could be expanded. Bondegezou (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that there is material about the situation in the UK there, but I don't think that that's a justification for deletion of this article. Merging material there could work (and there's an solid overlap case), but I think keeping information in the European Parliament election, XXXX (United Kingdom) series is easier for readers. Ralbegen (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For information purposes: The link to the date of the next election in the infobox of European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) was removed in this diff, April 2017. At that time the article European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) was a re-direct to European Parliament election, 2019, but with the link gone whatever info it contained was academic, at least as far as anyone accessing European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) was concerned. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think that changes the point I was trying to make, though: the material should be included somewhere, and it may as well be in an article called European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom). Ralbegen (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was really regarding Number57. The link to the date of the next election in the infobox of European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) was removed as a tweak presumably on the reasonable rationale of "oh, that's just a sentence in the lead section of the European Parliament election, 2019, saying In February 2018, the European Parliament voted to decrease the number of MEPs from 751 to 705, after the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union on the current schedule. - not worth keeping the link." I think there is less of a temptation to do that if the link goes to a full article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "EU elections 2019: MEPs pave way for pan-European constituency post Brexit". European Parliament. Retrieved 2018-06-07.
^ Scroll to bottom of page "Bill stages — European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19". UK Parliament.

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auro Palomba[edit]

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

Non-notable business person - fails WP:BIO SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete! Auro Palomba is indeed a notable business person. As you can see in the links below, He had an important role on AC Milan’s takeover complete and He’s the President of CLCA Crisis & Litigation Comunicators Alliance, an international network. https://acmilan.theoffside.com/2016/9/5/12798918/new-milan-executives-named http://www.diritto24.ilsole24ore.com/art/avvocatoAffari/newsStudiLegaliEOrdini/2014-03-26/community-assume-presidenza-clca-154534.php?refresh_ce=1 --Carliantonio1 (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ANYBIO and looks more like a resume so WP:RESUME may apply as well. Operator873^CONNECT 02:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Mahoney Tsigdinos[edit]

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

There are two articles providing coverage of the subject, but the second is very brief. The others are articles written by her e.g. [1] [2]. As it stands, neither WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete combination of WP:PROMO and WP:NOTESSAY for a writer, but sources I can find do not support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 7 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 00:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothé Nadim[edit]

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

Sources are mix of 1. Horoscope non RS. 2. IMDB non RS. 3. Name mention. 4.Facebook. Non RS. Single EP defined in Discogs. Non notable. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 09:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search turned up no secondary independent WP:RS coverage. No mention of him (let alone an article) in French Wiki. I couldn't even find anything about the bands he's said to have played in. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails MUSICBIO as well as GNG per lack of sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:43, 10 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spyro characters[edit]

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

Long list of non notable video game characters. References used are primary sources, no in-depth information about creation, development or reception. WP:GAMETRIVIA. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that the individual characters aren't notable aren't exactly an issue, as this is a list of characters, and we simply need to know that they are combined notable. However, there is no real nothing to show any sort of notablity for any of the characters. The article doesn't even mention Spyro himself as a character, despite him arguably being the only notable character in the series (Well, perhaps the egg-man at a push is somewhat notable due to his amount of press). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT as currently unreferenced cruft, if someone wants to recreate it fully referenced then I have no opposition to that._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:09, 5 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rampage characters[edit]

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

Trivial list of non notable video game characters. Five references, about the film, not about the actual video game characters. WP:GAMETRIVIA nonsense. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely non-notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Characters this basic can be described in their respective articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable character list. Simply not a game series that has received any third party attention for its characters. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable source for characters. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:693B:6854:B7E8:B5FF (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rampage (franchise), in case anyone ever want to put some of the information over there. Dream Focus 19:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging ChangeMakers Network[edit]

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

An advertisement that doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Marquardtika (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement Zarasophos (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; content is advertorial, it makes no claim of notability, and the group isn't mentioned in the one web reference that still works. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 12 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International 2018[edit]

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The main article, Miss Grand International was deleted several times. The topic did not receive significant coverage from independent reliable third party sources except blogs and personal websites. Richie Campbell (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The page Miss Grand International was previously salted due to constant recreation. Other articles about this pageant have also not survived AfD or gotten salted. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 22:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-G11. The article about the pageant itself has been deleted multiple times for lack of notability, along with multiple other "year X" versions, and this one is no more notable than the umpteen previous ones. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per G11 and g4x9! and block the creator for probable block evasion. See here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Zhu[edit]

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

References to PR releases and business profile listings don't constitute in-depth media coverage required for WP:NBIO. A preliminary online search didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I don't see enough to meet GNG. Of the 4 refs in the article, two are to the same press release at different locations, and the other two are to events/podcasts she has appeared on. None are independent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:41, 12 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Dubai[edit]

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

It is redundant to Dubai#Climate section and United_Arab_Emirates#Climate. --192.107.120.90 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 18:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Agree. Redundant (and a cut and paste) from the Dubai piece. However, I can see a Redirect from the Climate of Dubai to the Dubai article. If agreed and closed by an administrator, I could help you in doing this….Just ask. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Shoessss: As far as I can tell the only thing that's copied is the recently added table. This article has an eight-year independent edit history. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasonable case for summary style. Daask (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and it would be a speedy keep per WP:ATD if not for Shoessss' delete !vote). This is a perfectly valid summary style child article of Dubai. It's already three times longer than Dubai#Climate and could be expanded further. Even if that weren't the case, there is no way this should be deleted; at most it could be redirected. – Joe (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, it's notable and a perfectly valid summary split of the main article of Dubai. SportingFlyer talk 18:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid referenced article and helps to keep the main article at readable level. Will advise the nominator to not just rush in nominating articles on behalf of random IP without clear evidence that the article has problem. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly notable and a reasonable split of the primary article. Any merge would necessitate truncating of information without any need to do so. Regarding Ammarpad's comment, I slightly disagree. A quick message to the IP asking if they're sure (and why they're asking): perhaps. However any of us can drop AfDs like this on without breaking the rules - I view the assisting nom's only true requirements to be sure they aren't spam etc nominations. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Perhaps you misunderstand me. I don't say they broke any rule, they should only be cautious. Or perhaps, it is my conviction, I only nominate article that I reasonably believe has near absolute chance of being deleted, whether I am doing so on my own volition or on behalf of someone else. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: - sorry that was poor words by me, I just meant to stress that I felt unless breaking rules was occuring then assistance should always be provided. Obviously your nomination policy is what each person should be using in their own right, but in the areas that we limit access (or complexity limits it) then assistance should be granted with as much independence to the requesting person as possible. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is an ideological disagreement - it's not like I can't see your viewpoint as having legitimacy Nosebagbear (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your point too. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the current section "Climatic conditions by month" should probably be merged to the "climate data" table, but in any case should be harmonized with it. Right now, unless "average precipitation" and "average rainfall" have different meanings that I am not aware of, they differ. It might be because of discrepancies in the sources but that should be resolved. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically precipitation can be a bit higher because it includes snowfall, hail, sleet etc - but I can't imagine Dubai gets a great deal of those! Nosebagbear (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but I would like to see the climate chart in the Dubai article much less detailed. The data in both charts are completely different, so reducing one and maintaining full data in just one master monthly climate chart at Climate of Dubai makes sense to me. Or could the table be transcluded into both articles? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 7 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 per WP:SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Normie (slang)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTNEO. The sources just refer to it being a new word. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wikipedia is not a Dictonary. As such, delete and move to Wiktionary. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shoessss. Deb (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shoessss. It's exactly what I was going to write.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good catch. Unless how anyone can explain how this can be substantially expanded to make it encyclopedic. talk to !dave 18:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A dictionary definition of a neologism. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shoessss. Daask (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stupid Neologism. While I have heard of it, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The word has no significant coverage besides a mention of the word in a CNN article. 344917661X (talk) 20:27, 4 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 23:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Curley[edit]

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

County politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN, I'm not seeing anything beyond routine local coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has not held statewide office, fails NPOL. No notability found per WP:GNG. Coverage of this topic is strictly local in nature. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources, as flimsy and few-in-between as they are, are routine and are not indicative of a subject that passes GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the available sourcing does not come close to establishing notability. SportingFlyer talk 18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. WP:BLP fail. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 23:22, 6 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)} 19:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garret P. Wikoff[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also poorly sourced. Rusf10 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rusf10. Daask (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Rusf10. SportingFlyer talk 18:14, 6 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 consensus for a specific outcome has arisen in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant B. Newcomb[edit]

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

Mayor and county politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article is also poorly sourced, the only rs is an obituary. Rusf10 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the positions that Newcomb held do not lead to default notability, and nothing comes close to actually showing that Newcomb was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject seems to be encyclopedic, as he has received in depth coverage in multiple Monmouth County sources, such as: History of Monmouth County, New Jersey 1664 - 1920, 1922, Lewis Historical Publishing Co., Inc. p56-57. and Jersey Pioneer, Asbury Park Press (Asbury Park, New Jersey) 31 Oct 1971, page 39. Article mostly passes WP:CCPOL, and I'll try to clean it up a bit more. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources the article bases itself on are one historical article from the 1970's and one book which is functionally a historical encyclopedia of who's who in Monmouth County, and obituaries. Even though a locality may have local records of who married who where and who ran what business when, this information does not show notability in my mind, as the local encyclopedia may not have been as discerning as we are. (Obviously it can still be used to flesh out an article.) Other sources are just trivial mentions. There's not enough there to get a local politician over WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am seeing enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG including a NYT obit. And because the next person to write is going to say that the NYT is a local paper covering routine events ... then show me the obits for every other mayor in New Jersey over the past 100 years in the NYT. They are very selective. --RAN (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, a New York Time obituary, the gold standard of notability according to RAN. Why don't you show us the policy that states a NYT obituary trumps all other policies? Notable people usually do not things before they die. I can't read the paywalled NYT article, but being that he was stuck by a taxicab, I willing to guess that he died in New York City. (and guess what local newspaper covers things that happen in New York City) The wikipedia article claims he died in Long Branch, but doubt he was hit by a taxi there.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a non-paywalled obit - B. B. Newcomb Killed by Taxi At Long Branch, Asbury Park Press (Asbury Park, New Jersey) 2 Feb 1945, page 1 and 3. I'm not sure why you wouldn't think a taxi would be operated in the Long Branch/Asbury Park in the 1940s, but details on the cabby and passengers are in that article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, we've been in situations before where an otherwise non-notable politician has been killed or passed in office in unusual circumstances and have used obituaries to move "over the WP:GNG" line, which I think is wrong. The NYT obituary does not appear to be substantial. Just because this politician has been written about in local sources does not guarantee him notability on Wikipedia: the only articles on him are a history book, a business blurb on his newspaper retirement, and obituaries, which isn't enough for WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NY times archive pages give an image of the actual page with the article itself highlighted but too blurry and small to read. The paper is an 8 column, so each column is about 1.2 inches wide. With that as a guide, the 1937 announcement of Newcomb's retirement looks to be about an inch long[3] and his obituary looks to be a little over 5 inches long.[4] I usually consider 4 inches of material on an individual to be a substantial article, but others have other rules of thumb. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another clarification. Newcomb did not die in office and death by motor vehicle accident was not (and is not) unusual - motor vehicle accidents are generally right at the edge of the top 10 most likely causes of death in the US (and worldwide, I believe) and have been since the 1930s (See interactive graphic here). Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that article. I struck the part of my comment about him not dying in Long Branch, although I still stand by my earlier statement that there is not enough here to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting he died in office, and while you are correct about accidents being a top ten cause of death, he was struck by a taxicab, which is indeed an unusual situation. The entire first page of the Asbury Park article discusses the accident, his achievements relegated to page three. Also I think we're claiming he's notable as a county freeholder? His term as mayor was on a commission form of government, where mayors have little power. SportingFlyer talk 19:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meet WP:GNG. (Ends 20 Years With Newspaper, New York Times (New York, New York) 31 Aug 1937, p 25</ref> clearly establishes that his career of interest, also before he died ten years later. The Nw York.Djflem (talk) 17:57, 11 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)} 19:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Blood Services[edit]

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

With respect, this is not a notable organization. Fails WP:GNG. The Founder & President of this organization & the article creator are same person. No significant coverage. আফতাব (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:10, 9 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Flynn (British Army soldier)[edit]

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

I doubt if this poorly written article meets the notability guidelines. Looks more as a memorial then an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 16:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ; the reasons for deletion given by ‘The Banner’ for deletion are none specific, and based on opinion of the prose. The article is referenced and as well as possible true and unbiased. Even The Banner is unable to confirm if the article fails...

It is recording the life of someone who gave their life in the service of their country ( in this case adopted).

The gallantry award (DCM) itself is justification for notability - the medal is not one awarded for ‘turning up and not dying’ but requires notable sacrifice and dedication.

According to Wikipedia guidelines, this article clearly meets the requirements - It was created over 5 years ago without problem but suddenly fails because it was ‘poorly’ written.

PS - I am the original author — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisAckroyd (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Five years ago, it was rejected twice by the AfC-team for not having enough independent, reliable sources. Why it was moved to mainspace is a complete mystery to me. The Banner talk 07:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are no independent, reliable sources that I could find. The sources used in the article are all either primary sources that simply acknowledge his existence, by no means significant coverage. Clear fail of WP:GNG. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 22:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nomination could've been better reasoned, tough the article definitely is sub par in writing. A DCM is not sufficient to pass WP:SOLDIER's presumed notability, and nothing in the article indicates why the subject would be notable. Sourcing in the article is not sufficient to show GNG, and my BEFORE did yield much else in terms of usable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Icewhiz, do not believe notability is sufficiently shown and the sources are sub-par. Kierzek (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NOR. Sourcing, content, tone, and writing would need to be improved to make it an more encyclopedic article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holder of a single second-level gallantry decoration. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 8 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Calero Fernandez[edit]

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

Contested PROD, autobiography. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS77 ^✉ 16:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to say he just scrapes by on WP:GNG and I actually going to say he passes WP:NFOOTBALL, an assistant manager to a champions league team like FC Porto I would count that as a pass. Govvy (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably passes WP:GNG. Not convinced by Govvy's WP:NFOOTBALL though, that only applies to managers or players, not other coaches. Giant Snowman 11:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Yep, I would say it passes WP:GNG now as well, after taking a while and actually searching for sources and improving the page... MYS77 ^✉ 14:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:34, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of proxifiers[edit]

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

Another indiscriminate linkfarm of software that is unlikely to be notable individually. It doesn't appear that any content here individually has an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable list entries. WP:NOTGUIDE WP:NOTLINKFARM and various other degrees of WP:NOT.
Comment The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted.Accesscrawl (talk) 14:59, 9 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phyisque Global[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is very weak with reliability issues and reads like a promo piece in the present form. As an aside, the title of the article itself has been misspelled. MT Train^Talk 14:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nominator's assessment that this doesn't meet the notability guidelines for companies. The press coverage is very light. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and this look like created by someone from the same sock farm who were repeatedly creating Jag Chima (the CEO of this company) under various titles. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. FITINDIA 06:05, 10 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. It is possible I'm messing up, but I'm closing this as procedural keep because the consensus seems to be that this should not be a multi-AfD, but instead the articles should be individually assessed. This close in no way addresses the notability issue of any of the articles listed herein, including the primary. As this is a procedural close, there should be no issue with listing these immediately, if done separately. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Virginia Beach City FC season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG; also, as per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 New York Cosmos season, seasons for fourth-tier American clubs aren't notable. 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none of these articles have demonstrated WP:GNG and the vast majority of the sources are primary. Jay eyem (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Grand Rapids seasons. This team might be in the fourth division, but they are the highest level soccer team in the Grand Rapids metro area and have a good following. This team regularly receives coverage by local media including MLive and on TV. This team gets more attendance than some second division professional teams. Also, it seems stupid to delete pages that are well maintained just for the sake of deleting something. 68.43.38.101 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I very much disagree with the nominator's reasoning: the consensus at the New York Cosmos page did not create precedent all fourth-tier seasons aren't notable. I know for a fact Grand Rapids FC get coverage from mlive. Whether it's sufficient coverage for a season article, I'm not sure, and I'm not going to take the time to look or source the article to save it, but the test: are these seasons well-covered in independent media? For the majority of fourth division teams, the answer will be no, but the Cosmos article was specific to their reserve team. SportingFlyer talk 02:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Flyer, fair point on the Cosmos page. It was my personal interpretation that a wide precedent had been set by that decision; I was incorrect in that, apparently, thanks for the clarification. In regards to the GRFC coverage from mlive, I would argue that it is nowhere near enough to meet notability. A quick search on mlive.com for "Grand Rapids FC" turns up just six articles written in 2018, with two of those about the women's team and one about beer sales at home games. Only one of their five games this season has received a writeup (the home opener, to be exact.) Additionally, a google search finds only negligible coverage on the team from other sources. To address the other clubs' seasons in this AFD, it is the same: virtually no coverage by independent media. 21.colinthompson (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even if the consensus wasn't reached in that AfD, the consensus is still that season articles at this level (semi-pro in the US) don't meet NSEASONS and need to have notability established. If MLive does have some sort of in-depth coverage of the Grand Rapids season (preferably something along the lines of a summation at the end of a season) then maybe it could be argued as a keep, and even then I'm not sure that's enough. The sourcing needs to be significantly improved, as primary sources just are not adequate. As a side note, I will link to this AfD as the only example I have on my watchlist regarding this kind of situation. Take it with a grain of salt, I know there are others. Jay eyem (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a real quick follow-up, here are a few other instances I found (1, 2, 3). Jay eyem (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As another followup, here are a few more (4, 5, 6, 7). Jay eyem (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS / WP:GNG (and per previous consensus). Giant Snowman 11:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD shouldn't combine season pages from different clubs as this can cross conflict of interest. I recommend they be split up. I am already seeing conflict of interest in the comments above. Govvy (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with this. I don't see why multiple teams should be in the same discussion. Unless there is an arbitrary rule that fourth division soccer teams cannot have season pages regardless of notability, it seems like it would make sense to have separate discussions. Rungladwin (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with separate AfDs. It doesn't change the fact that WP:GNG isn't demonstrated for any of the seasons. In fact the only references that aren't primary are to a fanzine, a stadium, and to a goal of the year in 2017. None of these demonstrate notability for these seasons. I'm not sure what "arbitrary rule" you are referring to, but there is clear precedent that these kinds of seasons have not satisfied the relevant notability guidelines. Jay eyem (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point about an "arbitrary rule" for this level of soccer is that I believe individual teams can have differing amounts of notability and maybe they should be considered separately. For example, Detroit City FC and Chattanooga FC have a large following, appear more frequently in local media, and regularly draw thousands of fans while most other teams in the NPSL do not. Based on attendance figures, I would says that Grand Rapids FC appears to be more notable than most NPSL teams as well. Rungladwin (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't follow, what does having high attendance have to do with the (so far) lack of adequate sourcing and the precedent that's been set? Jay eyem (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional references were added to the Grand Rapids seasons to perhaps helps its case. Still, maybe the point was that notability it's all just measured by the number of sources. Maybe a club's following could also be a measure of notability. 68.43.38.101 (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This WP:MULTIAFD was inappropriate given these teams have received vastly different amounts of coverage and are under completely different circumstances. No objection to nominating separately so we can discuss each one on its own merits. Smartyllama (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in light of the recent changes to the Grand Rapids FC pages, I would support this measure. Jay eyem (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all They clearly fail WP:NSEASONS. Separate discussions for each article aren't needed here. Number 5 7 20:09, 6 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, deletion carried out by RHaworth with edit summary: "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G6, G7. Rationale: AfD has reached 'delete' consensus, author requested deletion in AfD". Cautilus (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GeForce_11_series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/GeForce 11 series

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

Delete A very large proportion of the information in this article is unverified. Some of the most important pieces of information are based on unreliable sources:

Turing as the name of the architecture. It could be Volta, Ampere, or something else entirely. NVIDIA has not formally announced any name, and only unverified rumors have suggested Turing or Ampere.
The naming scheme being the "GeForce 11 series". There has been no official confirmation from NVIDIA that this is the case, it could be the "20 series" or something else entirely.
The statement: "[The GeForce 11 series was] initially expected to launch in the first half of 2018, it has been delayed until H2 2018." has no citations, and there is no verifiable evidence from NVIDIA to support this claim.
The release date of July 2018. To quote the article that is cited as evidence for this statement, "...believe that the GeForce GTX 11-series will be launching in July!". Wikipedia is not about what people "believe" or "expect" to be the case, it is for verified & reliable information.
The GPU codename, GT104 is similarly based on rumor.
The statement: "...While these sources, such as WccfTech, have proven remarkably accurate in the past" is incorrect. Wccftech is not a reliable source, they are a rumor mill website. In fact, most of the information in this article is either from Wccftech or other publications citing Wccftech, which is not reliable.
- To provide some evidence for the fact that Wccftech is not a reliable source, here are some other articles that wccftech have published that contain either partially or wholly false information: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and there are countless more examples.

The specifications for the GTX 1170 & 1180 are entirely speculative and the cited source is not reliable.

As the information above is a large majority of the information contained in this article, I believe this article should be deleted as it does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and it breaches Wikipedia's policy about not being a "collection of speculative information". Cautilus (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with most statements here. The one thing verified was the series naming "11" it was verified by an Nvidia rep saying that the name would be 11 series however the second half would be different. no Ti etc. I can't cite a source but I remember reading it the day of. I also agree to deleting the page its full of nonsense. Matthew Smith (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft for the article to be worked on. It would not be sensible to delete all this, it will just need continued editing. Thincat (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed moving to draft is a better idea, I created it anticipating more reliable information coming up how ever the release is not expected as soon as previously thought in a recent talk by Jensen of nVidia whom stated the release was not for a long time. Moving to draft we can compile the reliable sources and publish the page when appropriate. quickstream2003 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (let an editor move it to their sandbox) - there is nothing supported by RS here. Dbsseven (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GTX 11 wont be coming out for an long long time. Plus, absolutely nothing on that page is confirmed. The editor should have moved this to their sandbox.... Bang. (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have made a copy of the page in my sandbox i'll continue to edit and revise with more reliable information as and when we are given a more solid time scale of release. The current page can and should be removed. As i said before i created it anticipating information to come out to confirm these rumours, i was wrong. quickstream2003 (talk) 18:12, 7 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. Whether to create a redirect and where to is a matter for interested editors to resolve. Sandstein 10:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Adamowicz[edit]

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

This article has a number of problems - beginning with the title, as the individual described is not Józef Adamowicz (A teenager(?) in a family that helped Jews near Wilno per yadVashem in the article), but Jozef Adamski (a 60 year old master bricklayer in Krakow). From my BEFORE Józef Adamowicz is clearly not notable. Adamski is somewhat more notable - but still a BIO1E that doesn't meet GNG. He is mainly mentioned in an account by Julian Aleksandrowicz, and more or less the same paragraph is present in approx. 3-4 books. In terms of sources in the article - Yad Vashem is on Adamowicz (I did search their website - Adamski appears only in a PDF with a long list of names). I'm not sure of the RSness of Olszewska, and it doesn't mention Adamski anyway. The third source is a WP:SPS which is also somewhat WP:QS, it contains a 4-line paragraph. Sources I found in my BEFORE, do not establish independent notability. Our article on Julian Aleksandrowicz already contains info on Adamski. Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding names - there are a few more notable individuals named Józef Adamowicz - plwiki entry and one of Adamowicz brothers. There are also a number of more notable individuals named Józef Adamski (but do not have Wiki pages) -e.g. a priest mentioned in 1899.Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect correct name - not notable for stand alone article; redirect correct name to Dr. Julian Aleksandrowicz. Kierzek (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kierzek: - a redirect might be due, but not from the current article name. The individual connected to Aleksandrowicz is Jozef Adamski.Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - duly noted and tweaked above. Kierzek (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything in the sourcing that suggests he passes notability. Fails WP:GNG. FWIW - I did a Google translate of an article with the same name on the Polish Wikipedia, which is quite different [[5]], and wouldn't actually vote keep for that article either. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:02, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amritha Aiyer[edit]

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

The subject-specific notability guideline demands significant roles in multiple notable films.

But, I'm afraid that she has starred in only two films and two isn't multiple.

Our general notability guideline demands non-trivial (preferably sustained) significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.

I'm afraid that she fails on those grounds too.

Overall, this looks like a quasi-poor AFC-accept of a declared-paid-article by Dial911.I'll say she ain't passing our notability-benchmark, at least as of now.

Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and is WP:TOSOON for now. FITINDIA 13:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Winged Blades of Godric: Definition of multiple indicates (as I would generally believe anyway) that multiple can most definitely mean 2. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a valid point but not in the wiki-sense of notability-assessment.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Winged Blades of Godric: - why not? If notability assessment is dependent on either 2 or more that would seem significant. And if they've defined multiple differently they need to both do so in each location and pick a different word. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's my understanding of the current community-consensus in actor-related AfDs.....You are free to differ:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom two isn't multiple and its WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for nowHeshiv (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasons?~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete two roles can be enough, but I'd expect more coverage than we have here; the discussion of her and her roles is minor in the sources. The article does feel promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:44, 12 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 09:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ripple (UCMS)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Article creator removed PROD in 2011 with unconvincing rationale. Tera TIX 12:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 13:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 13:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable event. If it had some decent coverage in the UCMS article it could redirect to University College of Medical Sciences AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IFixit[edit]

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

Delete A run-of-the-mill company with no claims to notability. References fails the criteria for establishing notability, are based on quotations/interviews/company announcements/PRIMARY and are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets general notability guidelines. Referenced often in textbooks and academic papers. Icco (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been rated as ‘mid-importance' on the WikiProject Environment's importance scale and has recent activity. While the article could use improvement, this company has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This month, iFixit was discussed in India Today, PC Magazine, NPR Marketplace, and Ars Technica.

Several of the primary sources in the article could be replaced with secondary sources to corroborate facts and establish the importance of iFixit in the electronics industry.

This page exists in six other languages. The German language page, in particular, has extensive sourcing that could be incorporated in the English article. Potifer7 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep iFixit is widely cited by news outlets that are considered to be reliable sources. I would go and seek out examples, but the ones given by previous !voters should be sufficient. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trickier than I originally thought, as nearly all coverage is of their teardown reports. Still, whenever they do a new teardown, it is immediately "reported" on widely, which suggests notability. We don't need to rely on that, as there is direct coverage of the site, such as this motherboard story or this from Bloomberg. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Per above....~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:42, 12 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Hamblin (journalist)[edit]

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

Delete Does not pass the criteria for notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails GNG and WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m normally the first to jump on the NOTSPAM bandwagon, but I’m not convinced in this case: looks like the original creator wanted to start a stub on a health journalist who is popular with millenials (which, giving away my age range, is why I watch the page, he’s one of my favourite writers.) In terms of sourcing: the article contains in-depth coverage in Politico and the Columbia Journalism Review (poorly formatted, so difficult to tell.) I don’t have time to do further sourcing checks now, but both of these are significant enough publications and the coverage is in-depth. Meets WP:N and the sourcing comes from unlikely sourcing to be churnalism. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I agree that of the 1,720 references and cites of Dr. Hamblin, 90% of them come from the The Atlantic, a leading literary magazine that has been around for the last 144 years and Dr. Hamblin is senior editor. However, you should also note that Dr. Hamblin is quoted and covered in The Washington Post, The Awl, The Guardian and the Huffington Post to name a few. If you missed these citation, they can be found here, with a simple Google News search, which I have provided [6]. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair: senior editor doesn’t mean much, it basically means he got his first promotion after an entry-level writing gig, and just because he’s published in the Atlantic doesn’t make him notable. That being said, there is enough sourcing to meet N here imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree. I wasn’t making claim of Notability based on being a Senior Editor. In fact, I held that against him for the fact he had influences on the number of pieces published in the Atlantic under his name. I was just pointing out the number of times he has either been quoted, referenced or cited 1,720 times. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet the basic notability requirements as mentioned above, referenced in many external sources outside of the Atlantic where he writes. Icco (talk) 20:09, 5 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)} 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Morse[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill businessman. Zero indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails WP:BASIC. Note: undeclared COI by article creator "Icco" as he used work at Punchd and has also created the related articles Niket Desai and Punchd. Icco also removed "notability" and PROD tags from related articles without fixing the underlying issues. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice :-). Created as part of a walled garden that also includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punchd. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delhivery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Previous AfD was closed due to a nom by sock. On review, I have reapplied for deletion. Zero indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company. None of the provided references meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the provided references are "intellectually independent" as all rely on information/quotations from company sources or interviews with founders, thereby failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Concur...Interviews of the founder cannot be considered a stepping stone to notability — F R ⁺ 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in mainstream media seems wide enough, and in the case of the following articles does meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND: Mint, Economic Times, Economic Times, Economic Times, Times of India. The following articles also allude directly to the company: Fortune India and Mint. There is enough coverage in mainstream publications to meet WP:ORG notability. Shobhit102 | talk 18:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the founder in this case does not hold notability on his own, and derives importance from having founded the company. And therefore, interviews in respected publications point to the importance of the company. Considering it is one of the largest players in a really large market segment, has attracted substantial funding from multiple large investors, and is moving towards an IPO, the startup is fairly significant. Shobhit102 | talk 18:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shobhit102, the guidelines are very clear on qualifying references to meet the criteria for establishing notability and not a single one of those references meet those criteria. Note that the criteria for allowable sources to support facts within an article are not as stringent and the references you've included are allowable for that purpose, but are not allowable for the purpose of establishing notability. The exercise of determining notability is not about the number of sources you can find in Google but about the content of those references which are required to provide intellectually independent in-depth information/opinion/analysis. For example:

This livemint reference relies on an anonymous source connected to the company and is therefore not intellectually independent (a key criteria) and arguably relying on an unofficial company announcement, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
This Economic Times reference also relies on a business-as-usual company announcement on earnings and fails WP:ORGIND.
This Economic Times reference relies on a company announcement from one of their new investors in relation to a funding announcement and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND
This Economic Times reference might arguably be allowable except it provides no intellectually independent opinion/analysis. The first couple of paragraphs comments on an earnings report by repeating some of the information, then there's a quote from an analyst, the a comment that the company did not respond to a questionnaire, then an earlier quotation from a company source, then *perhaps* the next paragraph could be interpreted as intellectually independent opinion from the journalist or it could be the journalist repeating information previously published. The second part of the article is about the industry in general. In my opinion it doesn't have enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND but others may give the the benefit of the doubt.
This Times of India reference is based on an anonymous source and fails for the same reasons as the livemint reference
This Fortune India reference is standard churnalism providing a Company Profile. The format of these type articles are pretty well known - history, glossy posed pics, history of funding, description of business, quotations, etc, but it is really a marketing piece. Fails since it is not intellectually independent and relies exclusively on information provided by company sources. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This Live Mint reference is a simple company profile included in a list of other company profiles and fails WP:CORPDEPTH, specifically inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists.

So out of the references you've provided, none clearly meet the criteria for establishing notability based on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HighKing, thanks a lot for helping me understand notability guidelines better. I really appreciate you taking out the time to do that. I understand your concerns regarding the sources above. I am not sure I understand why business-as-usual or investment decisions related coverage would not meet WP:ORGIND. There is significant coverage on both these aspects in multiple independent publications. And media coverage in general would seem to imply that the company is not a run-of-the-mill startup. But if it is decided that it is not so, I would not contest that further. Shobhit102 | talk 14:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shobhit102, no problem. I believe that the main reason is to meet the criteria of "independent" coverage. Independent does not mean that the publisher has no corporate connection with the company - it means that the coverage is intellectually independent. We are looking for intellectually independent opinion/analysis on the company, not regurgitated company-produced information. If you carefully read the sources and look for *anything* in the content where the journalist is voicing his/her own opinion or providing his/her own independent analysis, then you are closer to find a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. I note that you have kept your Keep !vote - if you've decided that the references don't meet the criteria, you can simply ~~strike~~ your !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is just so many reliable sources, so this compoany is definitely notable. Some Economic times articles meet both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Emass100 (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Emass100, your comment indicates that you are not familiar with the guidelines for establishing notability for corporations which goes beyond mere "reliable sources" and requires intellectually independent content. Nobody here has stated that the references, such as the Economic Times, are not "reliable sources". What has been stated is that the *content* of those articles are not *intellectually independent*. Take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH again - it says it very clearly. If you are still of a mind that the references meet WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, post the link here and we'll take a look. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per previous voters -Mparrault (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to point out the obvious, here at AfD it is not a simple count of !votes that determines the issue, but rather the qualify of arguments with reference to policies and guidelines. Since the previous !voters have relied exclusively on an argument that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, sadly, this does not help overcome the argument of non-notability since the standards for establishing notability go beyond establishing that a publication is a reliable source. If you believe that you have found a source that meets the guidelines for establishing notability, please post it here and we can take a look. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources offered here or in the article do not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, being passing mentions, routine funding news and / or WP:SPIP, such as interviews. As an aside,As per previous voters is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per HKing's analysis.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion is necessary on the substance of the sources here, and not just their existence. !Votes simply saying that "there are sources" carry will carry lower weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough independent sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The argument against those sources appear to be simply based on unsubstantiated/unproven/unprovable claim that they not independent. Hzh (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your comment appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the criteria for establishing notability. The test is not for "independent sources", the test is for "intellectually independent sources", a significant difference. I've already explained above why the sources do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps you could point to a specific reference and explain why the reasoning above is incorrect or unsubstantiated in some way, or perhaps provide an alternative viewpoint on why you believe the criteria for establishing notability has been met? HighKing⁺⁺ 09:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the WP:ORGIND criteria very well. All you are making is random accusation of supposed lack of independence that you could not substantiate, as there are huge number of sources covering a wide range of topics, just a few examples - [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. These are clearly the authors' own work, indications such as the authors trying to contact the company involved and received no reply, reference to independent sources, etc.. You should stop making random accusation against journalists. Given the number and variety of articles involved on the company, I'd suggest that WP:BEFORE was not properly conducted. Hzh (talk) 10:06, 10 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 09:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanna Mangiarelli[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG as she lacks significant coverage. While the subject is sometimes featured in The Advertiser, articles such as this feature a promotional tone that seems to link the subject to the paper. Besides The Advertiser, the subject is not featured in reliable sources except for a trivial mention in a Sydney Morning Herald article. According to GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", thus the single reliable source of The Advertiser fails significant coverage. A redirect could be made to her place of employment at Today Tonight. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 09:30, 28 May 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 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 12:06, 4 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)} 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niket Desai[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill businessman. Zero indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails WP:BASIC. Note: undeclared COI by article creator "Icco" as he used work at Punchd and has also created the related articles Reed Morse and Punchd. Icco also removed "notability" and PROD tags from related article without fixing the underlying issues. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no real indications of notability or significance; note that the subject does not inherit (per WP:NOTINHERITED) notability from the company he co-founded; indeed, the source cited to assert that claim only mentions him in passing. Probable WP:SIGCOV failure given the severe lack of potential sources about the article subject, and no indication of why Desai is notable when compared to other businessmen.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with prejudice :-). Created as part of a walled garden that also includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punchd. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 10 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)} 14:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smartlist[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Neither the cited sources nor anything elsewhere comes near to showing that this subject satisfies the notability guidelines. (Historical note: The article was subject to an AfD back in 2010, where there was very little participation. The closing administrator deleted the article, but because of the low particiapation restored it on request from the author of the article, but stated that "it remains subject to renomination if not improved". There has been little change to the article in the subsequent 8 years, and certainly none that indicates notability.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability, and no secondary sources about this software. I don't see this as prominent enough (compared to a generic concept of smart lists) to justify a redirect to procmail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:33, 5 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)} 14:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Weiler[edit]

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

The references provided and an Internet search do not provide any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason I prodded it. The subject is not notable. The references in the article establish that he is occasionally quoted in news media (mostly trade publications, although there is one reference to the New York Post), but none of them are actually about him. I couldn't find anything else. – Joe (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's just an average businessman.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some coverage of this lobbyist, but not sufficient for SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 5 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Saxena[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation by a new WP:SPA editor of an autobiography deleted via AfD. The 12 year gap precludes any accusation of sockpuppetry but the hint of autobiography remains. None of the companies he's founded are notable, none of his academic positions reach the standards required to demonstrate notability, he's not notable. Cabayi (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 40, even in a high;y cited field, passes WP:Prof#C1 easily. Has the nominator done WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

WP:BEFORE, step B1 would have resulted in a WP:G4 nomination. I felt that after 12 years some fresh discussion was more in order. Cabayi (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this article can be "substantially identical" to the one deleted in 2006 because a great deal of the content post-dates 2006. Thincat (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject rather easily meets WP:GNG. I'm not clever enough to understand WP:PROF. Thincat (talk) 18:01, 4 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)} 14:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chine-USA, la guerre programmée[edit]

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

Fully unsourced article, fails WP:NBOOK, not even sure it was translated to English. Other AfD in progress for its author, Jean-François Susbielle. — JFG ^talk 09:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons stated above.--Jaldous1 (talk) 12:22, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melodie Sexton[edit]

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

Ultra-stub article on a singer; I find nothing other than a few Youtube clips about this singer. The only references in the article are to databases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to aforesaid issues acknowledged and addressed as per edits and citations upon Melodie Sexton. Given her notable work as a vocalist and solo artiste with her collaborative works also being prominent upon Billboard Magazine and Oricon's charts as is illustrated within the article. Woojy4 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails on all counts re: notability and proper sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered A7, but decided not to do so due to the Youtube videos. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Due to aforesaid issues being further acknowledged and addressed as per edits and citations upon Melodie Sexton. Woojy4 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Coverage does seem sparse. Maybe there is coverage in Japanese news sources (I don't have access to this). Does Sexton meet WP:MUSICBIO#2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart"? "Brand New World" charted on Billboard [14]. Another song, "Through the Fire," charted on Tokio Hot 100 per [15]. If this isn't enough for an article...both songs were by GTS feat. Melodie Sexton. Maybe a redirect to GTS? Thsmi002 (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think GTS has an article right now, and don't know enough about them to create one myself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Due to aforesaid issues being even moroeso acknowledged and addressed as per edits and citations upon Melodie Sexton. Woojy4 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You can only vote once in a discussion. I've struck the other two votes by Woojy4. Of the references added, [16] is somewhat substantial, others are trivial mentions of her. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darrers[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources anywhere that indicate this meets GNG. I acknowledge the difficulty of finding online sources for a supermarket from the 1970s that went defunct in 2007, but still, you'd think if the store really was one of the first anywhere to introduce a free plastic shopping bag, you'd see evidence of that somewhere.

I checked Google, GBooks, GNews, GScholar, archive.org (text search and metadata), JSTOR, and Questia, using a number of variations on the name, including "Darrers", "darrers store", "darrers stores", "darrer's stores", "darrers bag", and "darrers+ireland". (Updated May 23 to add: I have just checked Newspapers.com and Highbeam despite their American focus, and also found nothing.)

The most I turned up were scans of local newspapers from 40 years ago which mention Darrers in the context of ROUTINE local coverage, and one memorial from an Irish man who complains that his mother bought cheap shoes from Darrers that he hated.

It's not enough for a GNG pass, or any other N pass either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't really be objective about this as being a Carlovianan this store was a large part of my childhood/teens. Very important stop when buying your fancy erasers and pencilcase each school year ;) That said, it does look as if the Darrers bag has made it into the local museum, might corroborate the story of the free bag? Smirkybec (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any policy-based arguments to support your keep vote, or are you going to stick with ILIKEIT? A bag being included in a local museum is hardly indicative of the kind of significant widespread attention required to pass WP:N. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest my answer was pretty tongue-in-cheek. I acknowledge that Darrers has not been written about a huge amount, and there is a lack of sources for it. That said I am an inclusionist, so I will always err that way. I know that histories have been written recently about other local retail institutions such as Hadden's and Shaw's Stores, so I think Darrers time will come. And I wasn't saying that inclusion in the collections of the local museum should argue for its retention, but that it might offer a source for being the first store to give out a free bag! I would say that it has an Irish notability, and given that retail in Ireland is poorly represented on-Wiki, I would be disappointed to see one of the few articles go. Smirkybec (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't evaluate articles based on the hope that there may be sources in the future, we evaluate them based on what's available presently, and right now (as even you acknowledge), there isn't enough to keep the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think User:Smirkybec was seriously offering her affection for the subject as an argument. Bit more civility please. The possibility that this was the first supermarket to offer free plastic bags in Ireland or the world is key, and it seems that this nomination is a bit hasty. Battleofalma (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I implore you to produce any kind of source whatsoever that validates that claim. You cannot simply assume that sources must exist, you have to actually provide some evidence that they exist in order for your argument to be taken seriously by the closing administrator. I take some offense to the claim that my nomination was hasty - I made extensive searches through a number of databases as indicated in my nomination. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best I could find to support that claim: http://www.igp-web.com/Carlow/Tullow_St_04.htm . I'm inclined to believe that it is true. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says a lot that an unverified personal recollection on a personal website with no editorial oversight is the best evidence available to support "notability" for this store. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the Keep !voters have produced any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing that meets the new and improved NCORP. Keep votes have no basis in any policy or guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and the keep votes are not convincing. -- Dane ^talk 22:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. Just a directory listing with no opportunity for improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Perhaps a few, better, reliable links are needed in the article? As for voting I'll abstain for now-I hate voting delete. but cannot rule a delete vote in a couple days if reliable links are not added. Antonio Im not Darrers! Martin (Unusual user's talk page) 09:18 June 3, 2018 (UTC)

The fact that "a few, better, reliable links are needed" is the whole crux of this AfD. Actually, it's the crux of almost any AfD and doesn't particularly need pointing out. As I noted in my nomination and in several follow-up comments, if I had been able to find any reliable sources in the first place, I would've added them, and if anyone else could, they would've produced them some time in the past two weeks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominator notes, the US-based news archive sites do not have many/any articles covering this subject. However the Irish news archives do. A quick search of irishnewsarchive.com for example turns up extensive references (to the store and the store's apparently recognisable bags). This includes, for example, two news reports from the Munster Express in February 1970 (across two weeks - 13 Feb 1970/page 20 and 20 Feb 1970/page 62) covering a shoplifting case - which uses "Darrers bag" as a synonym for "plastic bag". A classified "lost and found" ad in the Munster Express from 1976 (27 Aug 1976 page 4) which - whether a joke or serious - reinforces that the concept of the "Darrers bag" was a recognisable "thing". Finally, coverage of the closure of the store in The Nationalist newspaper (2004 and later in 2017) confirms that by that stage the concept of the Darrers bag was "meme"esque and quasi-folkloric. (FYI - I only looked for "Darrers bag" in the archives. Because "Darrers Stores" returned so much that I couldn't wade through it all....). In short, I strongly advocate a keep. Normally I am the FIRST to point to GNG as a trigger for AfD. But, by nominator's own admission, this was based on more US-centric sources only. Other available sources seem to support a GNG claim. Guliolopez (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I have added several of the many refs I found to the article. I would also offer (to the "there is no coverage" argument) the cover of "The Nationalist" from 24 Sep 2004 for example. Alongside mass-graves, robbery and Daniel Day Lewis, they made the closure of Darrers a "front page" topic. OK. It's not exactly the New York Times. Or the Washington Post. Or even The Irish Times. But still :) Guliolopez (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the sources you have added to the article are trivial at best and do not meet any of the criteria of WP:RS, let alone the more stringent criteria of WP:NCORP. The first one is an obituary of the owner not a discussion of the store, the second is a business listing which never contributes to notability, the third is a copy of the source Tazerdadog posted which I pointed out as unreliable above, the fourth is a classified ad mentioning a lost Darrers bag which obviously has no bearing on any claim of notability, the fifth is pretty much the only reliable source although it's a regional paper so that doesn't contribute much in the way of notability, the sixth is a tweet from a museum which I have already pointed out does not support notability, the seventh is entirely about something else and the words "From the Darrers bag" are the only part of it that concerns Darrers, and the eighth is a local source.

So the only two sources you have presented that aren't utterly trivial are local, which fail the portion of WP:N that requires "significant attention by the world at large" (typically taken to mean national coverage at a minimum). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to PMC from above "relisting" fold. Hi PMC. A few quick notes:

I didn't add those references (to this AfD thread) in support of the NN/SIGCOV discussion. I added them (to the subject of the AfD thread) in support of the article text.
For example, I added the "obit" reference because it supported the infobox and location text. Not because it supported a non-trivial coverage argument. That is met elsewhere. (On the classified ad, I didn't realistically add it because it supported the claim. The "synonym for plastic bag" is already supported by another reference. I added it because it was a bit "light". Remove if you wish).
In terms of the NN/SIGCOV argument, as noted, when I went looking for sources to confirm notability, I found more sources than I could dig through. 1,336 news references in fact. Including 40 "front-page" stories. The latter primarily in the Munster Express, Leinster Nationalist, Waterford News and Star, and other regional papers.
I did not include these in the article, because they are not required to support the text/claims in the article. However, examples include the Leinster Nationalist front-page of 24 Sep 2004 (including a half-page "feature" where the subject is clearly the primary topic), a Munster Express front-page of 30 Sep 1994 (also covered in a later op-ed), and several others.
In terms of WP:N and "world at large", I may be misreading your note, but I do not read "world at large" (or WP:RS) as precluding regional coverage. I would however note that, as evidenced by the other 'keep' advocates here, these things are rarely "black and white", "yes or no", "1 or 0". If they were, AfD could be replaced with automation.
And finally. Kudos for all the effort on WP:BEFORE. You went above and beyond. BEFORE is more than upheld. Its just that some subjects predate the wwweb. And hence not always found in open/online sources.

Mine is still a "keep". Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Guliolopez. Pre-www topics will always be a problem, so such nominations that may well only have local offline sources should be treated with care. ww2censor (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--First things first, the standard of sources to support claims within an article is of a much lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N.Secondly, it's utter insanity when someone adds a classified-advertisement as a source in an encyclopedia. Nobody has claimed that Darrers is a hoax and neither is AfD a hoax-debunking venue. Thirdly, I'm getting pretty surprised at the recent trend of throwing a volume of nonsense-rubbish-sourcing at AfDs, all of whom mention the subject tangentially at best, probably hoping that the sheer quantity will deter an quality-wise-analysis.Fourth, coverage in regional sources don't matter an iota, as to establishment of notability.A local/regional newspaper in my locality featured me in the front page, after I cracked a famed exam with quite a good rank and that does not make me any notable.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- tl;dr--Per PMC's brilliant arguments.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy-based evidence of notability was presented. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Social & Psychological Sciences[edit]

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

Article dePRODded by anonymous IP who added a (somewhat promotional) section on "content" and a list of abstracting/indexing services, none of which is even remotely selective. No independent sources. Note that the publisher is rather obscure and is not related to Oxford University Press. In addition, the journal appears to be moribund, it's homepage prominently displaying a call for submissions for the second issue of 2015 (!). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was actually created before the journal was launched, all the way back in 2007 (promising that the first issue was "due to be launched in January 2008"). It looks to have been promotional all along, and the journal apparently never became notable. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find independent RS or evidence of selective indexing needed to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL. I could find no reasonable merge or redirect target, either. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Oxford Mosaic Publication is not, and it has never claimed to be associated to Oxford University Press. Notebility of a Journal more often than ever reflect the amount of money a publisher has invested in marketing in order to make it a commercial success. The journal has been in existence for the past 10 years and it is up-to-date. Please thoroughly search databases where it is indexed. mahaprabhu (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything conclusive, but I strong suspect this is a scam journal and this article part of the attempt to make it appear legitimate. Regardless, it's a long way from satisfying WP:NJOURNAL or the WP:GNG. It isn't indexed anywhere. It doesn't even have a proper website. – Joe (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ Journal of Social & Psychological Sciences is not a scam journal. Although it belongs to a small publisher, Oxford Mosaic Publications is one of the few publishers who do not charge their authors exorbitant amounts of money to publish an article. This has been one of the publisher's ethos from its conception and they have this as their strict policy. Almost all publishers rely on their reputation to charge very large sums of money for printing articles which sometimes are not worthy of publication on a journal. It was perhaps the very first journal to overtly attempt to bridge the gap between Psychology and Sociology even thought this was still a hotly debated area in which very few Journals were prepared to explore. The JSPS counts with the contributions of even local academics from the University of Oxford. All of them can be contacted to verify the authenticity of this periodical. It appears that the journal is indexed and available to subscribers only. Any decisions to delete the JSPS WP page should be based on rigorous evidence and not simply a coordinated attempt to inadvertently discredit a periodical with 10 years of existence. Copies of the this serial can be found at World Catalogue and British Library. One must also note that popularity of a journal is not always synonym of quality, as this is a very superficial judgement. Journal popularity may sometimes reflect the Publisher's reputation and large marketing budget. Well established publishers may often sacrifice quality in favour of commercial success. WP Policy should be fair, objective, unbiased and reliant on facts as opposed to personal opinions grounded on personal agendas. mahaprabhu (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have already !voted above, mahaprabhu, so I have struck your second. Wikipedia's policy for inclusion is based on the objective criteria detailed at notability and (in this particular case) the notability guideline for journals. All you have to do to stop this article being deleted is provide us with some reliable sources that talk about the journal or some selective indexes that include it.

Also, just as a point of fact, major academic publishers generally don't charge authors any fees at all. I'm curious as to how you know so much about this journal's fee policy, given that I can't find it publicised anywhere. Do you have a conflict of interest here? – Joe (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems likely, as mahaprabhu originally created this page in 2007. Every morning (there's a halo...) 14:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as original PRODder (a PROD which I might add was endorsed by the nominator of this AFD). This fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG more spectacularly than any journal page I have probably ever seen on Wikipedia in over four years of editing such pages. Specifically, this journal fails these guidelines since it has no impact factor, no indexing in selective databases, virtually nothing on the journal website, really, and no reliable source coverage either. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peiman Eliassi[edit]

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

Subject is a footballer/soccer player who fails the sport-specific notability criteria because he has not played at senior international level or in a fully professional league, and there doesn't seem to be enough coverage to pass the general notability criteria. Article was PRODded as non-notable, but the PROD was removed by me because I'd somehow got it into my head that the Superettan was the Swedish top division and hence a fully pro league; it isn't. Sorry about that... Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Also FYI @Struway2: for future reference if you remove a PROD in error, I see no issue in you restoring it yourself, it wouldn't be considered 'contested'... Giant Snowman 09:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As original PROD'er. since Eliassi has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is more of a question about Superettan, it's not in the fully pro list, but is it a fully-pro league? Because the league seems to have a fairly big sponsor. Matches are on TV in Sweden on via TV4 Group and TV rights generates a fair chunk of money. If that's established they the out-come for this AfD would be different. Govvy (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Gharouni^Talk 12:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually nominated this article for speedy deletion before because the article didn't have any context, but context was added and I helped improve the article as well. But struway2 is right, this article doesn't meet any of wikipedia's notability criteria. 344917661X (talk) 12:46, 6 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OPTIX JSC[edit]

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

Seems promotional in tone and doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The editor whose username is Z0 08:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 4 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 Power of two#The 0th through 95th powers of two. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of powers of two[edit]

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

Duplicative of Power of two#The 0th through 95th powers of two, which is better formatted, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:53, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I used Twinkle. Could someone check the logs to see why it wasn't transcluded? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, we certainly don't need two such articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What are we? A calculator??? Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Personally I find it ridiculous we have one article on this, we definitely don't need a lower quality second Nosebagbear (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I removed the list from Power of two per WP:NOTSTATS (and it was completely unsourced). Same for this article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick side note that such a table doesn't need to be sourced, per WP:CALC. As far as if it should be there at all, that's a tougher call, but a reasonably compact table is probably okay given that the entire article is about powers of two. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 11:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, of course. There goes my plan for List of powers of ten. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 11:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

. . . . and what about my list of powers of 1? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was my powers of 0 that really made them unhappy Nosebagbear (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power_of_two#The_0th_through_95th_powers_of_two Vadder (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary duplication. No objection to a redirect but Powers of two already redirects to it so it is already unlikely that anybody searching for this would fail to find what they are looking for. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power of two; it's a plausible enough search term, and redirects are cheap. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Powers of two; redirects are cheap. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect non-notable. wumbolo ^^^ 13:33, 7 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 12:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Serra[edit]

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

Not tagged as a stub, I stumbled upon this while looking up an archive search for mayoral notability here: [17]. It's been orphaned for several years. A WP:BEFORE search digs up a few things: he was a principal at a school (I assume this is him) [18] and is in charge of a local sports hall of fame in addition to him being mayor, but all of the coverage of him as a mayor is WP:MILL, and the sources that could be used to best flesh out the article are either non-reliable (blogs) or are primary (city website). He fails WP:GNG and as a result WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 07:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Middletown CT is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they existed, but this article is not sourced well enough to get him over WP:GNG. Every mayor of everywhere could always show two pieces of purely local media coverage in their own local newspaper, so that's not enough coverage in and of itself to make a mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional villainous teams and groups[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not TVTropes, this is more of the kind of thing that would go there. Entirely unreferenced WP:LISTCRUFT that is not maintainable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This list is arbitrary, poorly defined, and unmaintainable. It's extremely poorly sourced WP:LISTCRUFT. Reyk _YO! 08:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons previously stated. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly listcruft, unmaintainable, with no rules. For instance, what makes Team Rocket an anime team, and not say a Video game team? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a WP:SNOW situation: this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, trivial and not encyclopedic. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete - This would easily pass a PROD for being unreferenced, original research listcruft. This is Wikipedia, not TVtropes. Nanophosis (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prepare for trouble, and make it double. I mean delete per all above. This is the kind of thing that goes to TV Tropes and not here. Even if it was suitable for Wikipedia, the inclusion standards and sourcing would be difficult to make use of. Better to just get rid of it than wasting everyone's time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mediamerx[edit]

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

Promotional article created by a WP:SPA about a company that provides trivial products/services, completely fails WP:NCORP. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company may have closed down, but once notable, always notable. Disregarding the press releases, the references from TV Week and GigaOm (formerly newteevee.com) appear to be reasonably comprehensive and from reliable sources, enough to establish notability. This link is brief, but helps to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For me, the TVWeek "Digital Dealmakers" profile of the company CEO and the GigaOM item are start-up proposition coverage; for example the latter concludes "Will it work? We shall see. For now the company has four people and a small amount of funding, but to meet its ambitions it will need more than technological innovation.": does that either claim or establish attained notability? After a couple of years the company appears to have morphed into Kaptur, seeking position in the wedding photo market, and then to have been acquired by Ahalife, and to have been regarded as a start-up throughout. (The other venture described in the text, Sportpass.tv, still exists, though its "About" page consists of "Lorem ipsum" content, so it is unclear who operates it.) I don't see anything sufficient for the current WP:CORPDEPTH standards. AllyD (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Search turns up nothing on GNEWS and doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH Edidiong (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. never was notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Ben Ezra[edit]

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

No authentic evidence of notability. References are more or less press releases which talk about the product developed by the subject rather than the subject itself. Fails at WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person who has developed a notable software platform. Needs expansion, not deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED may apply here. Hitro talk 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a quick search and found many more potential references. I used the two most reputable ones The Daily Telegraph and the Jerusalem Post (https://www.jpost.com/Jpost-Tech/Business-and-Innovation/How-an-Israeli-tech-company-helped-enable-the-global-chatbot-revolution-556553) to add a section on his vision. For me the Jerusalem Post is a clincher: that article claims he may be remembered as introducing one of the seven Israeli discoveries to influence the world. JimHolden (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added another reputable source that believes his views are noteworthy (Archival Outlook). JimHolden (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens of Soccer[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG not demonstrated, full of redlinks, and the primary contributor is "Sirenssos2009" whose only edits were made in 2009 with the creation and maintenance of this article. This looks like a promotional piece. Jay eyem (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG feels very WP:promotional. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 5 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 University of Puerto Rico School of Law. Sandstein 12:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPR Law School Building[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be significant third party coverage of this building (even in Spanish sources listed). It seems like current creation has COI issues as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Puerto Rico School of Law as that could easily accommodate the building. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad outcome however, I would want someone to be thoughtful in the merge given the COI issues I see present in the building article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag can still be applied unless someone's scrubbed the merge to keep it COI-free. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Merge" is the obvious wp:ATD-compliant treatment now for semi-notable/marginal buildings at universities. We are obligated to consider/search for alternatives to deletion, and one or more exist or could easily be created here. The merge options include the law school article already suggested, and a List of University of Puerto Rico buildings (currently a redlink) or similar list-article which could be started right now. Such lists exist for many, many universities now, helping to head off creation of separate new articles and serving as merge targets for the lesser quality existinng articles. An AFD can be closed with specification that the list-article should be created, i.e. with the decision being to merge to list-article. See Category:Lists of university and college buildings.

Actually, "Keep" could be an option too; I haven't really searched for sources myself. --Doncram (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I revisited this, was willing to go ahead and start a list-article on UPR buildings, perhaps by moving this one. But then, what would I edit down from this article, which is full of decent content, well sourced, and additional reading sources. Actually the sources in the article, although I cannot access and read them all myself, appear to demonstrate wp:GNG is met. For example, "Gustavo Moré,ed, “Expansión de la Escuela de Derecho de la UPR” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana (Santo Domingo: Editora Corripio, enero 2002) año 7, núm.13, 88-8". --Doncram (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the building has been used for different departments over the years, then it should still be connected to the law school. Look at Boalt Hall for example. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't seem much that would make this building notable. Much of the text strikes me as promotional and unencyclopedic written to praise the architect and/or building. I would merge the factual info.MB 17:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Slease[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a poet and musician, not properly referenced as passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:NMUSIC. This is written differently enough from the first version to not immediately qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but neither the notability claims nor the referencing are actually an improvement -- pretty much right across the board, this is referenced to sources that cannot carry notability, such as blogs, YouTube videos, the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with and the buy-it pages of his own works on Amazon (for the books) or Bandcamp (for the album). As always, however, people do not get Wikipedia articles by self-publishing their own verification of their existence, or by being nominally verifiable as having work for sale on an online store -- they get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of coverage about them in real media, but none of the references here meet that standard. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps some editing is needed in terms of a few of the references. I am not sure about the referencing of published books and albums? Is it done incorrectly? Maybe the citations should not include ISBNs but point to the publishers websites? In terms of notability, I have tried to improve the original deleted article by referencing a lot more sources for poetry commissions and performances from highly reliable sources, such as: Czech Centre London, National Poetry Library, The British library, Austrian cultural forum, Parasol Unit and October Gallery, Arnolfini Gallery, major avant-garde poetry festivals where he was commissioned as a guest poet (Prague Microfestival, Soundeye) and so on. Perhaps some of the citations pointing to youtube should be edited or deleted? Of course some of the youtube citations are from reliable third parties, such as Czech Centre London, but others are maybe less reliable? In terms of critical coverage from real media, the writer has been critically reviewed in Jacket 2 (perhaps the number one source for critical reviews of avant garde poetry in English). This niche work is rarely, if ever, reviewed in any major newspapers such as The Guardian, New York Times etc. While avant-garde poetry is a niche topic, it seems this author is certainly notable, in terms of commissions and performances, some critical reviews, and major publications (university presses such as the university of East Anglia/Boiler Press, major literary magazines such as Tin House, Poetry, Fence), to warrant a wikipedia page? I understand other wikipedia contemporary poet/author pages are not grounds for including this one (see previous discussion on deletion of Marcus Slease), but perhaps some consideration of this niche topic of contemporary avant garde poetry in English, and how this author contributes to contemporary avant garde poetry in a unique and notable way, is worth considering? I have found another source about the "nomadic" avant garde poetry of this author, in Polish, from a major Polish publisher and arts organisation. I will add this as well. I have been trying to extensively research the small world of avant garde poetry and in writing this article I have tried to include sources that are not directly related to the author. However, after researching this topic for quite a few years, it seems most of these poets collaborate with each other on artistic projects. Are those potential sources always unreliable? In terms of the author's connection to Steven J Fowler, it seems he is an avant-garde arts organiser and is not directly connected to the author/poet, but rather facilitates events, collaborations and so on with major backing from reliable UK arts organisations. Any help with editing this article is highly appreciated.

Thanks, Rasala Ewa (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the opening to the article to read: "Marcus Slease (1974) is a contemporary avant-garde poet and performer from Portadown, Northern Ireland." I am unsure of his nationality? Originally the article stated he was "an Irish poet." This was based on the following source^[1] that lists Irish poets in translation. Anyone have suggestions in terms of nationality? Better to leave it as "poet from Northern Ireland?" Rasala Ewa (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)— Rasala Ewa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the perfection of "Marcus Slease" as a pen name for a contemporary poet, and the fact that page creator User:Rasala Ewa doesn't know where he's from, we should consider the possibility that this is a pen name; which would make it less likely that we could find stuff like news reports about the writing contest he won in high school. Be that as it may, the fact remains that, as Nom states, the sourcing is of very poor quality, mostly primary. A news search turns up nothing at all: [19]. Not even the WP:MILL short reports of a reading in some local paper that minor contemporary poets have. Overstuffing a page with PRIMARY and other inadequate sources does not help.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a new page and that page creator User:Rasala Ewa is an editor whose career at Wikipedia. consists solely of editing this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAgain, the major review of Marcus Slease's poetry is in Jacket 2. Associated with the University of Pennsylvania, hosted by the Kelly Writers House and PennSound. This is THE major source for contemporary avant garde poetry in English. What could I compare it too? For mainstream music, maybe Rolling Stone? Of course there could always be more secondary sources from newspaper articles. I can see your point. However, given that there is a major review, and there is major backing from very well established arts and cultural institutions for performances in major cultural institutions in the United Kingdom, Prague, Ireland, and other places, and major writing commissions from some of these major arts institutions, I think there is a very strong case for notoriety. Please check the wikipedia link to Jacket 2 in the article. Also, please check the cultural institutions referenced in the article. Maybe these performances should be edited under the heading awards or commissions? There are a lot of reviews for poetry and other arts written in 1000s of online and print magazines. There are also more and more awards. Everyone has an award. They often don't carry much weight. There are also hundreds of wikipedia articles stuffed with fluffed up reviews (secondary sources) of art, poetry etc. It is all part of the marketing game. They don't seem to carry much weight. However, Jacket 2 is a major publication and again a major review. I would hope notoriety does not consist of quickly counting how many reviews are from secondary sources or doing a quick news search for small local newspapers etc. As for the idea of a pen name, please read the article more carefully and check the sources. There are lots of references to Marcus Slease in terms of biography (his education and degrees are under the name "Marcus Slease"). The question about nationality was more a political question. The writer is from Northern Ireland. I have established that. Some people from Northern Ireland identify as Irish and others as British. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I have been working on a phd on contemporary avant garde poetry and attempted an article on this writer previously. I tried to use much more extensive referencing in this article. However, perhaps the article has too many references to primary sources and needs some cutting? Maybe it could be reduced to something shorter? Maybe more like some of these articles? ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

^[6]^[7] Of course, I am not arguing those articles are better or worse in terms of notoriety, only that they are sometimes shorter with less references overall, especially to primary sources, and could be used as an example for cutting/editing this article? Rasala Ewa (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's your 2nd Keep vote. Spleodrach (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 17:54, 10 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. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Maria Darnov[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR. Although his credits on IMDB are prolific, they appear to be bit parts rather than major roles. His de.wiki article is pretty big, but sourced only to a bunch of profiles on user-submitted actor-for-hire websites. I didn't find any news sources or books that discuss him in detail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bit parts, all of them. No mentions in either the Presse or the Standard archives; Austrian actors who pass WP:NACTOR even just very barely (Christiane Hörbiger, Karl Merkatz, Nina Proll, ...) tend to have 60+ search hits in the former and 200+ in the latter. Kramler (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiharu Nakai[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. Ja.wiki article ([20]) is equally unconvincing for notability. No significant awards or contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing comes close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, hasn't won any notable or significant awards, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sivananda yoga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, only trivial passing mentions in a few R's. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article itself at this time. One of a series of malformed nominations by the editor--@Accesscrawl: for future nominations please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 03:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entire books have been written on the subject and are found with a simple web search. Just because an article is currently poorly sourced does not mean it should be deleted: that's what WP:BEFORE searches are for. SportingFlyer talk 03:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my mind already sufficiently covered in the refs provided. There are also academic treatments, although these tend to focus on Sivananda Saraswati and his school rather than on the practice (e.g. [21], [22], [23]). One could make a case for merging with Sivananda Saraswati, although since the practice seems to have escaped from direct affiliation with the ashrams, that might be less suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sosna[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local television meteorologist. As always, television personalities at the local station level are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist -- they must be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG. But apart from primary sources, the only other reference here is his paid-inclusion wedding notice in The New York Times -- which is not notability-assisting coverage, because anybody can get one of those by placing it themselves. Wedding coverage only counts as notability if The New York Times assigns one of its staff journalists to write about the wedding as a news story, and not if it's the couple's own submission to the paid-inclusion wedding announcements column. And the article was created by a user named Jdlovitz, making it a conflict of interest when you compare that to the name of the article subject's husband — and even if Steve Sosna had an article-clinching notability claim (which he doesn't), he and/or his husband still wouldn't get to create the article themselves. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD was blanked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable meteorologist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this person worked in two large media markets - Philly and NYC; that should count. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working in large media markets is not a notability freebie that exempts a television news personality from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 01:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In response to this person worked in two large media markets - Philly and NYC; that should count: no, it really should not. Notability is not inherited and a BLP must be reliably sourced; the problem is there is not enough coverage in my view to accomplish that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:55, 4 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Groupe Pratique[edit]

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

Directory-like listing on an unremarkable private company. Does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/FlorianGr with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article sourced to coverage of routine commercial announcements. My searches found another more recent one about acquisition of a how-to video site [24] but that is merely a press release. No evidence of Groupe Pratique or the related 118 000 having attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 9 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baldi's Basics In Education and Learning[edit]

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

Article about non-notable video game with no indication of meeting WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCT, or WP:WEB. Cursory search turns up only one RS that devotes any attention to the game, an April 12 article on Kotaku, which is well short of significant coverage.

The author has also uploaded images of the game's assets to Commons, which have been marked as copyright violations. In response to PRODding of the article, creator uploaded more game asset images. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 00:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (I was considering filing a CSD for this page, actually, but I think an AfD would be better. So thank you for this.) I can't find much, if anything, about this video game, or its notability; there is one article addressing it, no sustained coverage over time, and the sourcing is suspect (I seem to recall there was one reference to the Wikia for the game in an earlier version of the article, if not now). Additionally, the images used for illustration of the game are quite probably (in this editor's view) copyright violations, and should be removed post-haste, if they haven't been already. All in all, I think this is a pellucid matter: deletion is the only available option here. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 00:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is the creator of the article, this is a lot about this game, on the internet and youtube! Also you deleted a lot of my work so will you please bring it back! People want an article about this, you don't need to delete it!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnster2222 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnster2222: There actually is not a lot about this game. Let's players on YouTube are not reliable sources, and as I mentioned above the only other mentions that was actually signicificant coverage of the game is the April 12 article on Kotaku. Regarding the content: All the content that I removed consisted of copyright violations, either text copied from the game's itch.io page or images of game assets that are copyrighted to the game's developer. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - deos, this is a rather brutal article, nevertheless I've tried to focus on the actual reasons for deletion. I would say three main come to mind.

- The article reads as a marketing piece, under WP:DEL4, however I wouldn't say that there is no encyclopedic content

- There are copyvio issues, even with the pics removed. I suppose technically direct quotes could be put round the update log bits, but deleting them (or replacing with 2 line summaries of major changes) would seem to be the actual route to take.

- The real killer is that as mentioned above, notability. As covered, Kotaku seems the only appropriate ref (I've added it, so at least the quoted paragraph is covered). However there just isn't sufficient reliable coverage to support the article, everything else can't be independent. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no idea how this ended up on my watchlist, but this does not fulfill notability criteria and isn't written like an encyclopedic article, so would need to be completely rewritten if it were somehow kept. 14:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I think it's a bit too soon for this article to be created, not to mention the fact that the article is a complete disaster. I think this game is notable in terms of general popularity, but not notable in terms of wikipedia's notability guidelines. I say we wait a few months to see if there are enough reliable sources covering this game in depth and if that's not the case, then this article should not be on Wikipedia. So for now, delete this article. 317917661X (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just did a good chunk on the article, and I spent a long time on it. I will continue to add to the article if it will be kept. Let me maintain the article, don't delete it! I think people will see it since it has a huge fan service. Timwardo (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just because you worked hard on improving the article doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. There simply aren't enough independent, reliable, secondary sources for this article to be on wikipedia. 317917661X (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side Comment. I understand your point 317917661X, but I wasn't stating my work as a reason why the article should be kept. I was stating I put a great deal into it and it stinks that It has to be deleted. Although someone deleted all my work and not the page >:( Timwardo (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, calm down. Secondly, you said the real reason you don't want it deleted is because you put a great deal into it, which is literally you saying that you don't want the article to be deleted because you put a lot of work into it. You just worded the way you said it differently. Third, I deleted your work because it didn't cite many sources and some of it didn't look encyclopedic, such as the description saying in large text that it doesn't apply to certain versions. Thanks for understanding. 317917661X (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Despite one article from Kotaku (the Know your Meme reference is user-generated content, and thus doesn't count), the game is just not notable. It's been making the rounds on social media and "Let's Plays", but temporary memetic popularity doesn't justify inclusion on an encyclopedia. Besides, even if the article could be kept, I'd suggest a complete rewrite due to the current unencyclopedic tone. Nanophosis (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the problem, but are you mentioning my contribution, because i can still work on it. I am very serious on this article and hope to improve it, just don't delete my work :( Timwardo (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sorry who ever created this article, but... This can't be on Wikipedia, because first of all i don't like it because the article doesn't contain an infobox of the game, without it, it just makes it look boring, second: i feel that this article is just sponsoring the game instead of saying useful information about the game and third: it uses a user-generated content page as reference. Don't make an article just because it's popular, you need to write remarkable information about it. If you really took alot of work making this then, save it on your Wikipedia sandbox, or just keep it on your computer as a text file to make more improvements and remember: you need to use reliable sources as references, if you can't find good enough references then, just wait until they appear. Like 344917661X said, it's too soon to appear in Wikipedia. --Lebert130 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet standards for an average Wikipedia video game article I've been reading so far. Not to mention a bunch of copyvios committed by the author that had to be removed by someone else, both text and media. The article creation seems to be influenced by a Reddit thread here, which, incidentally enough, the creator Johnster2222 has also commented in under the alias /u/JohnsterSpace. Sorry about the mess here, /u/JohnsterSpace, but this game simply does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and it seems to be created waaaay too early, plus you've added in copyvios that had to removed by someone else. Being that this is a small Unity indie game, if doesn't get enough coverage by independent sources, then there's no way there could be a Wikipedia article about that game. theinstantmatrix (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. YouTube videos do not equal notability. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 22:05, 9 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.